ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Intergovernmental Co-operation

Russell Brown: What recent assessment she has made of co-operation between the UK and Irish Governments.

Lisa Nandy: What recent assessment she has made of co-operation between the UK and Irish Governments.

Theresa Villiers: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach said in their joint statement, the relationship between the UK and the Republic of Ireland has never been stronger or more settled. We particularly value the co-operation that we have received from the Irish Government and the Garda on security matters.

Russell Brown: The Secretary of State will know that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister recently announced that all-party talks would take place, under an independent chair, on a range of outstanding issues, including parading, flags, and dealing with the past. These are due to commence soon and to finish by the end of the year. Does she agree that both Governments have a vital role to play in these talks and in helping all the parties to find agreement on these vital issues?

Theresa Villiers: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that both Governments have warmly welcomed the announcement of that group; it is very timely that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have proposed it. I am delighted to tell the House that an independent chair has been confirmed—the eminent Richard Haass from the United States will take on that role. As we will see in forthcoming days, this demonstrates once again the importance of looking at long-term devolved solutions on matters such as flags and parading.

Lisa Nandy: The inability of the National Crime Agency to operate in Northern Ireland is a serious impediment to the fight against organised crime, trafficking, paedophile rings and terrorism on both sides of the border. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Irish Justice Minister and the Northern Ireland parties to sort this out?

Theresa Villiers: I have had a number of discussions of that sort, and I can provide some reassurance. The NCA will be able to operate in Northern Ireland in relation to matters that are not devolved, including border controls, human trafficking issues, and matters to do with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, so it will have a role there. It can also provide advice and support to the Police Service of Northern Ireland in relation to devolved matters. Although it will not be operational on the ground, it can still provide a resource to assist the PSNI. I will continue to work with the Northern Ireland parties to see whether we can make the NCA’s role in Northern Ireland the same as it is elsewhere in the UK.

Philip Hollobone: Given that we recently lent the Republic of Ireland billions of pounds to help it through its financial difficulties, to what extent are the Irish Government helping us to renegotiate our terms of membership with the European Union?

Theresa Villiers: The UK and the Republic of Ireland do have many useful occasions to co-operate on European matters. The Republic of Ireland certainly has a different view from the UK Government on further integration, but on commercial matters—single market matters—we work well together.

Mr Speaker: May I gently say to the Secretary of State that cheeky ingenuity should be met by exemplary brevity? That is what she has provided, and we are grateful to her.

Nigel Dodds: Given all her discussions with the various parties that she has to speak to, the Secretary of State will be aware of the perverse decision made last night by the Parades Commission, which has rewarded bad behaviour and punished good behaviour in relation to parading. What is she going to do about it?

Theresa Villiers: I am working closely with the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister in their preparations to do everything they can to secure a peaceful 12 July. I believe it is important for everyone in this House and the Northern Ireland political parties to call on all concerned to work for a peaceful 12 July. It would be hugely damaging to Northern Ireland if the good news from the G8 were blighted by scenes of rioting on the streets of north Belfast.

Nigel Dodds: We want to see that peaceful situation continue. We do not want to see any trouble on our streets. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Parades Commission has made the situation immensely worse and created severe tensions? Last year republicans brought out machine guns and attacked and shot at police, while Unionists and loyalists behaved impeccably. Republicans have been rewarded; Unionists have been punished. How on earth does the Secretary of State expect people to react in such a situation? Is it not time for the Parades Commission to be replaced by something more sensible?

Theresa Villiers: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has strong views on these matters, and the fact that these events relate directly to his constituency give him an important say on them. I recognise the anger in parts
	of the loyalist community about this decision, but it is vital that people recognise that the Parades Commission is the lawfully constituted authority. Respect for the rule of law is crucial. It would be immensely damaging to Northern Ireland if we had a violent 12 July. Whatever people think of the Parades Commission’s determination, I hope they will listen to the statement made yesterday by all five party leaders on the importance of the rule of law and a peaceful 12 July and comply with the commission’s determination.

Paul Goggins: Now that the Home Secretary has decided that she is in favour of the European arrest warrant, will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland arrange an early discussion with the Home Secretary’s Irish counterpart on how to make the warrant process less bureaucratic and a more effective weapon in the fight against organised crime north and south of the border?

Theresa Villiers: I have had a number of useful discussions with Alan Shatter about this matter and how the Republic of Ireland views it. Discussions are taking place between Home Office Ministers and the Irish Justice Minister. I am sure they will continue as part of the Home Secretary’s efforts to ensure we reform and improve the way in which the arrest warrant works.

William Bain: On economic co-operation, the British-Irish Council helps increase trade and boost growth between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. What more can the Secretary of State do to boost the maximum level of economic co-operation between nations right across these islands?

Theresa Villiers: The recent meeting of the British-Irish Council produced some very useful conclusions on matters such as energy and the creative industries, and the Prime Minister used the G8 to strengthen relations between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. He very much welcomed the Taoiseach’s input to the G8 discussions. We are determined to continue to maximise the benefits that come from the G8 in terms of economic activity in Northern Ireland and future friendly relations with the Republic of Ireland.

The Economy

Heidi Alexander: What her policy is on the Northern Ireland economy; and if she will make a statement.

Theresa Villiers: The Government wish to rebalance the economy to help Northern Ireland compete in the global race for jobs and investment. This is the aim of the economic package agreed between the Government and the Executive. The successful G8 has also demonstrated to the world that Northern Ireland is very much open for business.

Heidi Alexander: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. She will be aware that at the beginning of this month the Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association warmly welcomed the initiative being spearheaded by the shadow Business Secretary, my hon.
	Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), to make 7 December “small business Saturday”. Will she put on record her support for that proposal and outline the concrete steps she will take to ensure that it is a success?

Theresa Villiers: Small business Saturday was raised with me by Glyn Roberts of NIIRTA when I met small businesses just a few days ago. The Government are determined to rebalance the economy to create the right conditions for growth in Northern Ireland. That was the aim of the extensive economic package that we agreed with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, which was broadly welcomed by people such as the Taoiseach, the US President and even the shadow Secretary of State. That provides a good platform to help small businesses.

David Simpson: One of the obstacles to the growth of the economy in Northern Ireland has been the lack of funding from banks to help small and medium-sized enterprises. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the banks so that funding can be made available to these companies?

Theresa Villiers: I have had extensive discussions with the banks, Treasury Ministers and the Finance Minister of the Northern Ireland Executive. That informs an important part of the work stream that we will take forward as part of the economic package.

Mark Durkan: The Secretary of State will agree that, because of the shape of the Northern Ireland economy, public contracts represent a significant part of the market opportunity for our private sector. Does she therefore agree that any implications of sleaze or partisan hands being greased in relation to public contracts or any other governmental decisions that could favour the private sector should be investigated to the full?

Theresa Villiers: These are devolved matters. It is, of course, for the Assembly to investigate any allegations made along those lines. It is not for me as Secretary of State to intervene in those allegations. I am sure the Assembly and Executive will deal with them in an appropriate manner.

Inward Investment

Andrea Leadsom: What recent discussions she has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on inward investment.

Michael Penning: The Secretary of State and I have frequent meetings with Executive Ministers about further inward investment in Northern Ireland. That was a key focus of the economic pact that was concluded and agreed on 14 June. Our efforts are now focused on the G8 investment conference in October, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will attend.

Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he join me in welcoming the announcement of a business-led taskforce to look at how EU rules are
	holding back businesses? Does he agree that that initiative will be vital for Northern Ireland’s economic development as much as for the rest of the UK?

Michael Penning: I welcome the taskforce and the Northern Ireland Executive’s promotion of the 5,900 jobs that they would like to see with an investment of £375 million through foreign direct investment. That is something we support.

Naomi Long: Further to the question from the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), inward investors will look at governance as part of due diligence before investing in any region. Given the serious allegations about political interference in public housing contracts, does the Secretary of State agree that it is within her remit to call for a full independent inquiry under the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005, in consultation with the Executive?

Michael Penning: Northern Ireland has an excellent police force and their investigations will look into any accusations that are made. We look forward to hearing from the police.

Laurence Robertson: On a recent visit to the United States, members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee were told that bad publicity from certain paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland would be a deterrent to inward investment. There is, however, a lot of good news in the Province, so what will the Minister do to promote that over and above the very rare occurrences of bad news?

Michael Penning: The good news, and particularly the G8, showed the whole world the good things that are going on in Northern Ireland, and how its normalisation process has moved forward enormously. All that good news and good publicity will go if there is anything like what we saw on the streets in terms of rioting and paramilitary activity, which we should all condemn.

Sammy Wilson: I hope that Members on these Benches will welcome the cross-community efforts made by the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon)—an orange suit on Monday and a green suit today.
	May I ask the Secretary of State how the Government intend to capitalise on opportunities for inward investment that originate from the G8 conference in Northern Ireland, and the good news that has flowed from that?

Michael Penning: The October investment conference that the Prime Minister will attend is the next step forward in showing normalisation and that Northern Ireland is a good place to invest. Before that, the world police and fire games—the second largest sporting event in the world—will be held in Northern Ireland, and 7,000 competitors and thousands of supporters will be in Northern Ireland to see how well it is doing.

Corporation Tax

Ian Murray: What assessment she has made of the potential effect of the devolution of corporation tax.

Theresa Villiers: We recognise the potential benefits of devolving corporation tax in Northern Ireland. We are continuing to consider the technical and financial implications of such a change, and will make a decision no later than the 2014 autumn statement on whether to devolve rate-setting powers.

Ian Murray: There remains significant concern in Northern Ireland about the reduction in the block grant should the rate of corporation tax be equalised with the south. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Chancellor and the Northern Ireland Finance Minister about the consequences for the block grant, and by how much would it reduce if corporation tax were equalised with the south?

Theresa Villiers: I have had extensive discussions on that matter on a number of occasions with the Northern Ireland Finance Minister and Treasury Ministers, including the Chancellor, and that issue is one reason why we must consider carefully before deciding whether to go ahead with the change. We must ensure that the numbers are correct and that we have thought through all the consequences before a decision is made on whether the devolution should take place.

Gregory Campbell: In answer to an earlier question the Secretary of State mentioned her determination to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy. Given that any decision on corporation tax is at least 17 months away, what other weapons will she help to provide in the armoury of the Northern Ireland Executive to help inward investment in our private sector?

Theresa Villiers: We have already started on that work by bringing the G8 to Northern Ireland to demonstrate what a fabulous place it is to do business. We have also agreed an extensive economic package with the First and Deputy First Ministers, with extra funding for PEACE IV, extra structural funds and the retention of 100% assisted area status, which has enabled the Northern Ireland Executive to create 3,000 new jobs in the past three months alone.

Bill of Rights

David Anderson: What her policy is on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

Michael Penning: The Government would like to see the issue resolved on the basis of consensus among the parties in Northern Ireland, and we remain open to taking whatever action might be required should there be such a consensus.

David Anderson: The Minister is aware, as is everybody in the House, that a Bill of Rights was an integral part of the 1998 Belfast agreement. We have waited 15 years for it. How much longer must we wait while people cannot make their minds up? Surely the Government have a responsibility to ensure that this moves forward and should not just pass the buck on to people in Northern Ireland.

Michael Penning: I do not think anybody in Northern Ireland or in the House would say that the matter has not had an awful lot of attention in the past 15 years. The previous Government were unable to find a solution. I understand the problems that they had, and people have to understand the problems that we have. We need a consensus, and then we can move on. Until we get consensus, we cannot do that.

Jim Shannon: At a time when newts and bats can stop a multi-million-pound planning application, will the Minister explain to me and the House how pursuing a Bill of Rights that does not address the basic right of an unborn child can possibly be value for money, and why it should be high on anybody’s priority list?

Michael Penning: I respect the hon. Gentleman’s views, but he has just explained exactly why the Bill of Rights has taken 15 years and there is a lot of work still to come on it.

Margaret Ritchie: Given that an Ipsos MORI poll showed that 80% of the supporters of the main political parties in Northern Ireland were in favour of the introduction of the Bill of Rights, will the Minister outline how the Government will use that level of consensus to bring forward a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland to reflect all the protections that are needed and the need for the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement?

Michael Penning: Eighty per cent. is not a consensus, and it leaves 20% of the population of Northern Ireland that are not yet in agreement. If they can get together and form an agreement, we can move on.

Lady Hermon: The Minister will be well aware that under the terms of the Belfast agreement, any future Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland is supposed to deal with issues particular to Northern Ireland. Since parading is particular to Northern Ireland, what steps are the Northern Ireland Office, the Secretary of State and the Minister taking to ensure that the right to parade is guaranteed in any future Bill of Rights?

Michael Penning: The Secretary of State and I have had a lot of discussions on the matter, but the Parades Commission is an independent body and we have to accept its legal decisions. We may not all agree with a decision, but it must be adhered to.

Parading

Julie Hilling: What her policy is on parading; and if she will make a statement.

Theresa Villiers: It is vital that the determinations of the Parades Commission are obeyed and that the rule of law is respected. We encourage all concerned to work to ensure that parades pass off peacefully and that different traditions can be celebrated in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding.

Julie Hilling: The Parades Commission has an unenviable task, and although I commend the work of the commissioners and acknowledge the difficulty of the job that they have to do, it is clear that there are issues to consider about confidence in their deliberations and decisions. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, and does she agree that we need to address the matter in the weeks and months to come?

Theresa Villiers: I certainly agree that the Parades Commission’s decisions can spark controversy but, in a sense, that is inevitable given the nature of its role. I welcome the initiative to consider a reform of parading matters, which we spoke about earlier, which provides an opportunity for all of us in the House to call on all concerned to work constructively and peacefully together so that parades can pass off peacefully in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

William McCrea: For many, like myself, the Parades Commission in Northern Ireland has a reputation of driving the communities further apart and being deliberately provocative in its determination to humiliate the Orange tradition in Northern Ireland while rewarding violent republicanism. What is the cost of that unelected, unaccountable quango that the Secretary of State keeps in place, and is it not long overdue that it is abolished?

Theresa Villiers: The cost of the Parades Commission is set out in the Northern Ireland Office annual accounts. I know there are concerns about the Parades Commission’s decisions and I know that they are controversial, but it is absolutely crucial that the rule of law is respected. All of Northern Ireland will suffer if the pictures that go around the world this weekend are of violent scenes. There is a way to ensure that these events pass off peacefully. I urge everyone to seek that.

Peter Hain: Has the Secretary of State consulted Lord Ashdown, whose commission included both a senior republican and a senior member of the Orange Order, and was able to come to a consensus? Will she also talk to Roger Poole, whose chairmanship of the Parades Commission was very successful? There might be lessons there.

Theresa Villiers: I am happy to talk both of those individuals. That would be very useful.

Alasdair McDonnell: May I endorse the view expressed by the Secretary of State that the decisions of the Parades Commission have to be supported? Does she and the Northern Ireland Office have any plans to work at or develop better dialogue, so that contentious parading can be avoided in the future?

Theresa Villiers: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. It is vital that Parades Commission determinations are obeyed. He is also correct to say that local dialogue is the way forward. I welcome the fact that that took place for a few days last week. I hope that both sides will continue that dialogue, with a view to a local and sustainable resolution to parading next year.

Vernon Coaker: More than 550 parades are taking place in Northern Ireland over the 12th, the vast majority of which will pass without incident. I wish
	those taking part an enjoyable and peaceful day. There are, however, a number of very contentious parades. Can the Secretary of State update the House on arrangements to ensure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is able to deal with any public order issues that arise? Of course we hope that none does, but we must always be prepared.

Theresa Villiers: I spoke this morning to the Chief Constable for exactly such an update. The shadow Secretary of State will be aware that that includes approximately 600 mutual aid officers from Great Britain, drawing on the experience of the G8. Those officers have started to arrive. The PSNI is doing all it can to ensure that we have a peaceful 12th of July. I hope it will receive the support of the whole community in seeking to achieve that.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the Secretary of State for her response. She will know, as I do, that there is particular concern regarding the Ardoyne. I have spoken with representatives of the Orange Order and the residents’ association, and continue to encourage them to re-enter talks to try to find a way forward. The Parades Commission has given its determination and the law must be respected. Does the Secretary of State agree that even at this late stage we must not give up on dialogue, we must not give up on talks and we must not give up on trying to find a peaceful way forward?

Theresa Villiers: I am in complete agreement with the shadow Secretary of State. Dialogue is always helpful, no matter how late in the day. It is particularly important in finding a sustainable way forward for next year’s parade.

The Economy

Andrew Stephenson: What recent discussions she has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy.

Theresa Villiers: I had extensive discussions with Executive Ministers prior to the publication of our economic package, “Building a Prosperous and United Community”. I look forward to working with the Executive on implementing this important programme of work.

Andrew Stephenson: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to ensure that the highly successful G8 summit in Lough Erne leaves a lasting economic legacy for Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: The G8 was tremendously successful. We have had some rather grim matters to discuss this morning in the House, but we should not forget that the world saw a positive picture of a scenically beautiful Northern Ireland that is open for business. The next opportunity to capitalise on it is an investment conference in October, which the Prime Minister will attend.

Kevin Brennan: I recently met the head of Tourism Ireland, who told me about the great success of the new Titanic museum in Belfast.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that this shows that marketing Ireland as a whole can help to rebalance and benefit the Northern Ireland economy?

Theresa Villiers: There are some advantages to that. We are looking at ways to encourage visitors to the Republic of Ireland to extend their stay to visit Northern Ireland. That is why our economic package contains proposals for a visa waiver pilot to enable those from certain countries with an Irish visa to travel to the UK.

Stephen Pound: Further to that last, excellent question, I am sure the House would agree that it would be mean spirited and churlish to do anything other than welcome the announcement of the economic package, notwithstanding that it was a re-stating of much that was announced by the previous Government, but may we have a little more detail about what has been agreed with the Northern Ireland Executive, and, above all, may we have some knowledge of the time frame for implementation?

Theresa Villiers: We are pressing ahead as soon as possible with our start-up loan system, which we hope will be in operation within weeks; we have already agreed—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asked a serious question, and the Secretary of State is trying to answer, but there is far too much noise in the Chamber. Let us hear the right hon. Lady.

Theresa Villiers: The package includes top-ups for the Peace IV programme and structural funds; the retention of 100% assisted area status; a major G8 conference in October; measures to boost lending to business; a £20 million investment plan for research and development; agreement on the potential mechanism for taking forward further work on corporation tax devolution; a commitment to a new way forward on enterprise zones; a potential visa waiver pilot; and a number of other measures.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

John Glen: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 July.

David Cameron: Before listing my engagements, I am sure the whole House, and indeed the whole country, will wish to join me in congratulating Andy Murray on his historic Wimbledon success. To become the first British player to win Wimbledon for 77 years is a fantastic achievement and will rightly go down in our history books.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

John Glen: Today, the Government are setting out plans to modernise Royal Mail and to allow hard-working—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. This is exceptionally discourteous. We have Question 1. The hon. Gentleman will ask the question; and that question, and the answer to it, will be heard.

John Glen: Today, the Government are setting out plans to modernise Royal Mail and to allow hard-working postmen and women to own 10% of the shares. Will the Prime Minister tell us what support he is expecting to see for this measure?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I think there will be widespread support around the country for modernising this great public service, for getting new capital into the service and for ensuring that 10% of the shares go to the people who work for Royal Mail. Remarkably, it was proposed by the Labour party when it was in government, but of course, because the trade unions now oppose it, Labour has to oppose it too—fresh evidence today that it is still in the pockets of its trade union paymasters.

Edward Miliband: Let me first join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Andy Murray for his fantastic victory—following Virginia Wade’s victory in 1977. It was a fantastic achievement; he showed extraordinary determination, and the whole country is incredibly proud of him.
	As the Government consider party funding reform, will the Prime Minister tell the House how much his party has received in donations from hedge funds?

David Cameron: I am not surprised—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister, I know, will want to answer the question put to him, and we must hear him do so.

David Cameron: I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has this sudden interest in party funding. Let us be frank: every donation to the Conservative party is fully set out and public. Let us be clear what this real scandal is about; it is about trade union fixing of political appointments to this House, so when he gets to his feet, let us hope he addresses the 40 seats that Unite has fiddled, and let us also hope he publishes the Falkirk report and tells us—[Hon. Members: “Answer the question!”] Labour Members do not want to hear—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I am always concerned about the rights of Back-Bench Members, and they will be heard; and if we run over for the purpose, because of this sort of conduct, so be it. They will be heard. Please, let us have a bit of order and some answers.

David Cameron: The problem is, they’re paid to shout and they’re doing nothing about it.

Edward Miliband: I do not think the Prime Minister wanted to answer the question, did he? So let us give him the answer: the Conservative party has received £25 million from hedge funds. Now, next question. In the Budget, the Chancellor gave hedge funds a £145 million tax cut. Can the Prime Minister tell us: was it just a coincidence?

David Cameron: The top tax rate under this Government is going to be higher than it ever was under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, but let me tell him this important point. There is a big difference between donations to the Conservative party and donations to the Labour party, and the difference is this: donations to the Labour party buy votes at your conference, buy candidates and MPs in this House, and pay for the votes that gave him his job. They paid their money, they bought their votes, they put him in his place, and that has not changed a thing.

Edward Miliband: I will tell him what the difference is: 6p a week in affiliation fees from ordinary people up and down this country, against a party funded by a few millionaires at the top. And what is—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Ellis, you find it so difficult to control yourself. I am sure you did not when you were practising at the Bar. Calm it, man! Get a grip of the situation!

Edward Miliband: What is shameful about it is that the Prime Minister does not even know about the extra tax cut he gave to hedge funds. He says he wants reform, so I have a proposal for him. I am willing, as I have said before, to have a £5,000 limit on donations from trade unions, businesses and individuals, as part of a fundamental reform in the way our parties are funded. Is he willing to do that?

David Cameron: First of all, let me deal with—[Hon. Members: “Answer!”] I will answer. Let me deal with 6p a week—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. We have got to listen in order to hear.

David Cameron: Let me deal with 6p a week. Here are the figures since the right hon. Gentleman became leader: £8 million from Unite, £4 million from GMB and £4 million from Unison. They have bought the policies, they have bought the candidates and they bought the leader.
	I have long supported caps on donations. I think we should have caps on donations, and they should apply to trade unions, to businesses and to individuals, but let me say this. There is a—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There is still too far much shouting, on both sides of the Chamber. The Prime Minister I think is concluding his answer.

David Cameron: Let me be frank with the right hon. Gentleman. There is a problem with a £5,000 cap, and it is this. It would imply a massive amount of taxpayer support for political parties; and frankly, Mr Speaker, I do not see why the result of a trade union scandal should be every taxpayer in the country paying for Labour.

Edward Miliband: So there we have the truth—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Edward Miliband: So there we have the truth: the Prime Minister is ducking funding reform. He does not want it to happen. Let us test his willingness to reform in this House. Current rules allow MPs to take on paid directorships and consultancies, as long as they are declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and Members on both sides of the House abide by those rules. I say: in the next Parliament—this will affect both sides of this House—MPs should not be able to take on new paid directorships and consultancies. Does he agree?

David Cameron: I think that what matters is that everything is transparent and open. Those are the rules we agreed. The right hon. Gentleman made me an offer—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I said a moment ago that the Leader of the Opposition must be heard, and he must be. The Prime Minister must also be heard.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman made me an offer. Let me make him an offer. If he wants change, there is a Bill coming to the House of Commons next week that will cover trade unions. If he wants to legislate to move from opting out to opting in, if he wants to give union members a chance to choose whether to donate and to vote on whether they should give to Labour, we will legislate. Will he accept that offer of legislation? Yes or no?

Edward Miliband: I have to say that the right hon. Gentleman will have to do a lot better than that. He must answer the question on second jobs—[Interruption.] Let me tell him and all the Members opposite that between now and the general election, they will be subject to this test: do they support second jobs, new directorships and consultancies—yes or no? That is the test. Let us try the right hon. Gentleman with another test. I say—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The question must be heard, and the people whom I might have thought about calling to ask a question who are shouting from a sedentary position might just as well leave the Chamber.

Edward Miliband: As well as ending new directorships and consultancies, there should be a limit in the next Parliament on how much people can earn on top of their MP’s salary, as happens in other countries. The public would expect nothing less. What does the Prime Minister say?

David Cameron: What is interesting is that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to talk about the trade unions stitching up parliamentary selections. He does not want to address that, but that is what this scandal is about. Let us ask what has actually changed since yesterday. Will the unions still have the biggest vote at the conference? Yes. Will they still be able to determine the party’s policy? Yes. Will they still have the decisive vote in choosing the Labour leader? Yes. Those are the facts: they own you lock, stock and block vote.

Edward Miliband: This is a man owned by a few millionaires at the top of society, and everyone knows it. Here is the difference between him and me: I want action on second jobs; he does not. I want party funding reform; he does not. I am proud that we have
	links with ordinary working people; he is bankrolled by a few millionaires. The party of the people. The party of privilege.

David Cameron: It is not the party of the people; it is the party of Len McCluskey. That is the fact—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. We cannot just have a wall of noise. We need questions and answers.

David Cameron: It is not the party of the people; it is the party of Len McCluskey. They buy the candidates, they buy the policies and they buy the leader. What is Labour’s policy on Royal Mail? It is determined by the Communication Workers Union. What is its policy on health? It is determined by Unison. What is its policy on party funding? It is determined by Unite. It is no wonder that that the right hon. Gentleman thinks like Buddha: he wants to be reincarnated and come back as a proper leader.

Julian Huppert: Three quarters of a million British people suffer from heart failure, a condition—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. However long it takes, the question will be heard.

Julian Huppert: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
	Three quarters of a million British people suffer from heart failure, a condition that uses 1 million hospital beds every year. Recent research funded by the British Heart Foundation has found that even low levels of air pollution can significantly increase the risk. Will the Prime Minister commit to meeting European standards on air quality? If implemented, such a commitment could increase life expectancy by up to eight months.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point about air quality. We have seen real improvements in recent years, and that makes a genuine difference to public health. Important discussions are ongoing in the European Union at the moment, particularly about car emissions, and I will perhaps write to him about our conclusions on those issues.

Paul Blomfield: The Government have diverted EU regeneration funds intended for South Yorkshire to benefit wealthier parts of the UK. The chair of Sheffield City Region local enterprise partnership has said that the arguments of local business have been ignored, and that the decision will have a hugely negative impact on jobs and growth. Why has the Prime Minister ignored local business leaders, and how can he justify allocating 34% more per head to Cheshire than to South Yorkshire? Do not this Government always have the wrong priorities and stand up for the wrong people?

David Cameron: We have done a very fair assessment not only between the regions of the United Kingdom, but between the nations of the United Kingdom about how to distribute this money. We have distributed it in a fair way. If we look at Yorkshire and Humber, we see employment up by 11,000 this quarter and 86,000 since the election, but as the hon. Gentleman is a member of Unite, it is not surprising that he does not mention that fact.

Mark Spencer: Does the Prime Minister welcome last Friday’s vote to give the British people a say on their relationship with Europe—a vote with a stark contrast, in that those in the Labour party chose to stay away and squabble with themselves over fixing within the unions?

David Cameron: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on how he presented his Bill on a referendum in the European Union. There was unanimous support on this side of the House from the Conservative party. What was noticeable is that although there was a 19-page briefing from the Labour party—like every other bit of paper nowadays, we find it lying around the House of Commons—Labour Members could not make up their mind which way to vote.

Nicholas Dakin: Does the Prime Minister agree with a former Conservative treasurer that the money received from Asil Nadir is tainted and that the Conservatives have a moral duty to give it back? When will he return that money?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman should start with the fact that his party has taken £1.6 million—not a £5,000 cap—from Mr Mills and advised him how to dodge the tax.

Laura Sandys: Under the last Government, communities such as Thanet were left and abandoned on benefits. Was my right hon. Friend impressed by the thousands of jobs created in Sandwich, London Array and our jobs fair? This Government are putting people back into work.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was impressed on visiting Thanet to see the jobs being created by the London Array. It is providing jobs in shipping for seamen, jobs in engineering, apprenticeships; it is a really important investment for this country, and we hope to see many more like it in the future.

Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is widespread agreement in this House about the importance of investment in infrastructure and indeed widespread agreements about its job-creating potential? Can he therefore tell us why, after three years in office, employment in the construction sector has fallen by 84,000 people?

David Cameron: Employment in construction is currently rising, and the recent news on construction has been very good. That is because we have an infrastructure plan, a fifth of the projects are under way and we have road building at far higher levels than it ever was under the Labour Government. Whereas Labour electrified literally five miles of railway line, we are going to electrify hundreds of miles of railway line. I note that the hon. Gentleman does not mention the fact that he has been paying rent to Unite in his constituency. Normally, it is money from Unite to Labour; in this case, it is from—

Mr Speaker: Order. I call Mr Rees-Mogg.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that after yesterday’s surrender of powers by the Home Office to the European Union by bringing the European Court of Justice into the arrest warrant, the Commission has welcomed it as pragmatic? Has pragmatism overtaken the Prime Minister’s popular desire to repatriate powers?

David Cameron: The Home Secretary’s announcement yesterday represents the repatriation to the UK of 98 powers. There were 133 items on the justice and home affairs list, which is a massive transfer of power back here to the UK. I think my hon. Friend should welcome that.

Alison Seabeck: A carer and her husband who has Parkinson’s disease were moved to a two-bedroomed property because he found it impossible to sleep when they were sharing a room. The cumulative effect of this Government’s welfare changes means that she is going to have to find an additional £1,000 a year. Carers UK has published evidence showing that the discretionary payment scheme is benefiting only one in 10 people. That is the scheme that Government Ministers frequently pray in aid. Was it the Prime Minister’s intention that nine out of 10 carers should face eviction, debt arrears and bailiffs?

David Cameron: Let me make it clear that disability living allowance, the main benefit received by disabled people, is being uprated by inflation and excluded from the welfare cap. When it comes to the spare room subsidy, anyone who needs to have a carer sleeping in another bedroom is exempt from it. There is also the discretionary payment. [Interruption.] Labour Members shake their heads, but the fact is that they have opposed each and every one of our welfare savings, and it is now Labour’s policy to adopt our spending plans. They cannot go on accepting the plans but criticising them at the same time.

Pauline Latham: It is one year since the Government suspended aid money that goes directly to the Kagame regime in Rwanda over the role that the regime played in supporting warlords and militia gangs in the Congo. Recently, the UN confirmed that Rwandan army officers are still involved in such activities. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that those actions are unacceptable for a Commonwealth nation? Will he work with his international counterparts to ensure that those committing war crimes are brought to justice?

David Cameron: Those committing war crimes should always be brought to justice. I have raised the issue of support for the M23 with President Kagame on a number of occasions. We need to bear that in mind in looking at our aid programme, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has done.
	I think we should also recognise—this goes across parties in this House—that British investment in aid in Rwanda has created one of the great success stories of African development over the last decade. We should
	continue to invest in that success and lift people out of poverty while delivering a very clear message to President Kagame at the same time.

Phil Wilson: Prime Minister, how many jobs should an MP have?

David Cameron: All Members of Parliament have the clearest possible duty to their constituents. Let me make this point. Do I think the House of Commons benefits from people like the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and his experience? Do I think the House of Commons benefits from the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who comes to this House with his experience? I think we do benefit. I am not sure that we benefit from my immediate predecessor, but there are Opposition Members who give good service to this House.

Greg Mulholland: We are all celebrating Andy Murray’s historic victory this week. The Prime Minister may not know that history was also made in 1954, when Dave Valentine, a Scotsman, was the first man to lift the rugby league world cup trophy for Great Britain. The 14th rugby league world cup is happening this year—the first major sporting tournament on these shores since last year’s wonderful London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics. Will the Prime Minister give it full support and will he come to one of the games?

David Cameron: I was not aware of that important piece of history and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing me up to date. I strongly support the fact that we are holding this tournament and will give it all the support I can. Obviously, between now and then we have the small issue of the Ashes, and it is important that we hold that as well.

Andy Sawford: When the Prime Minister entertained the hedge fund owners of Circle health, the private hospital company, to a dinner for donors in Downing street, what did he promise in return for their £863,000 donation to the Tory party?

David Cameron: Let me just give the hon. Gentleman the figures: £8 million from Unite; £4 million from GMB; and £4 million from Unison. The difference is this. Those donations—they buy your leader, they buy your policy, they buy—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I call Jonathan Lord.

Jonathan Lord: Does the Prime Minister agree—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Lord’s question must be heard.

Jonathan Lord: Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is welcome that 2,500 out-of-work households in London can no longer claim more than the average working family earns—a welfare reform opposed by the Labour party at the behest of its union barons?

David Cameron: The Labour party has opposed every single welfare change that we have made—£86
	billion in total. People in this country, including trade union members, will find it inexplicable why the Labour party thinks you are better off on benefits than you are in work. That shows that not only does it have the wrong relationship with the unions—it has the wrong values, too.

Cathy Jamieson: Can the Prime Minister tell—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Basic manners would suggest that the question be heard. Just as I said about Mr Lord, so, too, I say that Cathy Jamieson will be heard.

Cathy Jamieson: Perhaps the Prime Minister can tell the House whether Mr Aidan Heavey’s donations to the Conservative party had any influence on the Foreign Secretary’s intervention in his company’s tax dispute?

David Cameron: As I said, the donations to the Conservative party do not buy votes at our party conference; they do not buy votes for our leader; they do not mean donors can select candidates. That is the unhealthy relationship in British politics, and the Opposition can bluster all they want, but they have been found out in Falkirk and they are being found out across the country.

Daniel Kawczynski: Every Shropshire child receives £4,612 per annum for their education. In other parts of the country that figure is as high as £7,000, £8,000 or £9,000. This funding mechanism is completely unjust and puts Shrewsbury children at a disadvantage. Will the Prime Minister do everything in his power to help the Education Secretary change this funding mechanism before the unions try to block it?

David Cameron: We agree that the current system is unfair, and my hon. Friend gave the figures. We have committed to consulting on how best to introduce a national funding formula for 2015-16. We will consult widely with all the interested parties to get this right. That will obviously include all Members of Parliament, and I know he will campaign very hard on that issue.

Helen Goodman: The Tory Chair of the Treasury Select Committee has described the Government’s banking reforms as “falling short” and in some respects “virtually useless”. Is this the pay-off for all the millions the banks have poured into the Tory coffers?

David Cameron: It is this Government who commissioned the Vickers report. It is this Government who committed to a ring fence around retail banks. It is this Government who are legislating to have criminal sanctions against bankers. What did the last Government do? What did those two do when they were sitting in the Treasury when Northern Rock was handing out 110% mortgages? They were knighting Fred Goodwin and watching while Rome burned.

David Nuttall: On Friday the town centre of Bury will fall silent as the people of Bury lead the nation in paying respects to Drummer Lee Rigby, who was so horrifically murdered
	on the streets of Woolwich. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to all his family and friends and his comrades in the Fusiliers for their calm and dignified response to their loss, and thank all those in the Church, our armed forces, the police and public services who have been engaged in the planning and preparation for the funeral?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend speaks for the whole country and the whole House when he talks about this issue. We should all pay tribute to Drummer Lee Rigby for his service to our country. I heard about it at first hand when in Afghanistan meeting other members of his regiment. We should also pay tribute to his family for all the pain and difficulty they are going through, and I am sure it will be a very fitting and moving service on Friday and the whole country will be mourning with them.

Ian Lucas: I have a JCB factory in my constituency, and I represent its parliamentary interests as part of my parliamentary duties. Will the Prime Minister tell us how much the Foreign Secretary was paid by JCB while he was in opposition?

David Cameron: JCB is a great British company that exports all over the world. Instead of trying to talk it down, we should be celebrating it. It is opening businesses; it is creating employment; it is training apprentices; it is backing our academy programme. How typical of the party opposite; all it wants to do is talk down great British businesses.

Mark Reckless: Does the Prime Minister agree that what this Government do, as when they helped us save the Medway Insolvency Service, is represent the interests of ordinary, decent trade unionists, who too often are lions led by donkeys?

David Cameron: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and may I pay tribute to him for his work in saving the Medway Insolvency Service? This is important; the fact is that those in the party opposite are in hock to union leaders, and that is why they refuse to investigate the scandal of these rigged appointments. That is what this scandal is about, and that is what they refuse to talk about.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Large developers are major contributors to Conservative party funds, so could the Prime Minister tell the House what role they have played in shaping Conservative party planning policy?

David Cameron: As a member of Unite, the hon. Lady speaks with great authority on this subject. Let me explain again: when people donate to the Conservative party they are not buying votes for the leader, they are not buying policies and they are not buying votes at the party conference. The reason the Leader of the Opposition has his job is that trade unions bought votes in the Labour party and put him where he is. That does not happen in any other political party, and if Labour Members have got any sense at all, they will realise it is profoundly wrong.

Lorely Burt: I am sure the Prime Minister will agree that there is no better way to build a stronger economy and a fairer society than through apprenticeships. In Solihull, the number of apprenticeships has nearly doubled already, and I am on a mission to build on that success by working with local businesses to create 100 new apprenticeships in 100 days. Will the Prime Minister support that objective?

David Cameron: I would certainly support my hon. Friend’s campaign, as I would support the campaign of all Members across the House to encourage people to take up apprenticeships. That is about encouraging not only young people, but businesses. In Solihull and the west midlands we have the advantage of Jaguar Land Rover, a company that is really powering ahead, taking on many more employees and also investing heavily in apprenticeships.

Pamela Nash: This morning, a constituent contacted my constituency office threatening to commit suicide because they were so depressed from the effect that welfare reform was having on them. I would like to say that that was a unique incident, but it was not. Will the Prime Minister tell the House what the Government are doing to analyse the effect of welfare reform on the mental health of this country and how he is going to react to it?

David Cameron: As I have said many times at this Dispatch Box, I am always happy to look at individual cases, but the fact is that we badly need to have welfare reform in this country; the system was completely out of control. Housing benefit was out of control, and disability living allowance had gone up by a third in the past 10 years. We need reforms, and it is no good the shadow Chancellor gesticulating, because he now is in favour, apparently, of welfare reform; the only problem is that he opposed all £86 billion of the reforms that we have made.

Neil Carmichael: Engineering work financed by this Government is under way to re-double the line between Stroud and Swindon, which is fantastic news. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is a good example of sensible investment in infrastructure, leading to economic growth for Gloucestershire?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Investing particularly in some of the branch lines which have been single-track lines, such as the ones that serve my constituency, and turning them into double-track lines really makes the service far better and far more reliable; we can also get more people out of their cars and on to trains, and use the service like that.

Stephen McCabe: Has Lynton Crosby advised the Prime Minister to model himself on Senator McCarthy?

David Cameron: What I say to the hon. Gentleman is that he needs to examine again this relationship between the unions and the Labour party—that is the problem. [Interruption.] Yes, they do this: they give you the money, they buy the votes, they buy the leader. That is how it works.

Royal Mail

Vincent Cable: Mr Speaker, today I have laid a report in Parliament announcing that the Government have decided to proceed with a flotation of Royal Mail shares on the London stock exchange via an initial public offering. A sale will initiate the final stage of the Government’s postal sector reforms. The overarching objective of those is to secure the universal postal service—the six-day-a-week service, at uniform and affordable prices, to all 29 million addresses in the UK, which is vital to the UK economy.
	Four years ago, the independent review of the postal sector, led by Richard Hooper, concluded that the universal service was under threat. The previous Government accepted the review’s package of three main recommendations and the Bill to implement them, which would have permitted a minority sale of Royal Mail shares, was withdrawn.
	In 2010, Richard Hooper’s updated report confirmed his initial findings and that a package of measures was needed to secure the universal service. Through the Postal Services Act 2011, which I introduced three years ago, we have implemented two elements of the package by establishing Ofcom as the postal regulator and taking on Royal Mail’s historic pension deficit.
	As set out in today’s report, we will now implement the third and final element of the Hooper recommendations by selling shares through an IPO in this financial year. We will retain flexibility on the size of stake to be sold as that will be influenced by market conditions, investor demand and our objective to ensure overall value for money for the taxpayer. It is our intention to dispose of a majority stake, taking into account shares sold and those allocated to employees.
	The IPO will include a retail offer to enable members of the public to buy shares on the same terms as the big institutional investors. At the time of the IPO, the Government will allocate 10% of the shares to an employee share scheme. Those shares will be free to eligible employees, recognising that many would otherwise find them unaffordable, and I want to strengthen employee engagement by ensuring that employees own a real stake in the business. Employees must retain their shares for at least three years, giving longevity to the scheme. Our scheme will be the biggest employee share scheme of any major privatisation for nearly 30 years.
	Eligible employees will also receive priority in allocation if they purchase shares in the retail offer. I want to reassure employees that ownership change does not trigger any change in their terms and conditions. The Communication Workers Union will continue to be their recognised representative and employees’ pensions will continue to be governed by the trustees. As part of a three-year agreement, Royal Mail is also prepared to give assurances on the continuation of a predominantly full-time work force; a commitment to provide and enhance existing services to customers using the current work force with no change to the structure of the company in relation to these services; and no additional outsourcing of services.
	Royal Mail is profitable and its overall financial position has significantly improved. That is partly due
	to the Government’s action so far, but considerable credit is also due to the management and the work force who have implemented a modernisation plan. The challenge now is to maintain that positive momentum. In recent history, Royal Mail’s core UK mails business has swung between profit and loss. In the 12 years since 2001, it suffered losses in five of those years and more than 50,000 jobs were lost. Resting on the current level of progress is not enough.
	Under public ownership there is simply not the freedom to raise capital in the markets. A share sale will not only provide commercial discipline but give Royal Mail future access to private capital, enabling the company to continue modernising and to take advantage of market opportunities such as the growth in online shopping, building on its success in parcels and logistics. Recent estimates are that that market is probably worth £75 billion in the UK.
	There are various myths that we must rebut. Contrary to what is being claimed, after a sale, Royal Mail will still be the UK’s universal service provider. That includes services to urban and rural areas and free services for the blind. Only an affirmative resolution in Parliament can change these minimum requirements. Free services for the armed forces are entirely independent of ownership and Royal Mail is fully reimbursed for those services by the Ministry of Defence.
	Ofcom’s primary duty is to secure the provision of the universal service. It also has duties to promote competition where that benefits consumers. I want to be absolutely clear that should the two duties be in conflict, the universal service takes precedence. In March, Ofcom published a statement on its approach to end-to-end competition, making it clear that should a threat to the universal service arise from this competition, it has powers to take any necessary action. Ofcom is currently the most appropriate body to assess and react to such threats to the universal service, but as a safeguard, the Government have retained powers to direct Ofcom with respect to certain regulatory levers, such as reviewing the financial burden of the universal service and taking mitigating action to ensure that the universal service is maintained.
	I also confirm that Post Office Ltd will remain a publicly owned institution, although we continue to explore mutualisation. The Government have committed to the fact that there will be no further closure programme. Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd signed a 10-year commercial agreement in 2012 to ensure that they will continue to be strong business partners.
	In conclusion, the Government’s decision on the sale is practical and logical. It is a commercial decision designed to put Royal Mail’s future on a long-term, sustainable basis. It is consistent with developments elsewhere in Europe; privatised operators in Austria, Germany and Belgium produce profit margins far higher than Royal Mail’s, and have continued to provide high-quality, expanding services. The time has come for the Government to step back from Royal Mail and allow its management to focus wholeheartedly on growing the business and planning for the future. It is time for employees to hold a stake in the company and share in its success. This Government will give Royal Mail the real commercial freedom that it has needed for a long time, and I commend this statement to the House.

Chuka Umunna: We opposed the Government’s privatisation of Royal Mail during the passage of the Postal Services Act 2011; we oppose it today. Maintaining Royal Mail in public ownership gives the taxpayer an ongoing direct interest in the maintenance of universal postal services in this country; helps safeguard the vital link that the Royal Mail has with the Post Office; and ensures that the taxpayer gets to share in the upside of modernisation and the increased profits that Royal Mail delivers. Despite that, the Government have pressed on regardless with this sale, and they have failed adequately to justify why they must sell now.
	On one side, there is an unusual coalition against this move: the Opposition; the Conservative-supporting Bow Group, which described this move as “poisonous”; the Royal Mail’s employees, represented of course by the CWU; and the National Federation of SubPostmasters. The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), wrote to a constituent in 2009 saying that he, too, was opposed. On the other side, there is the Government, which now includes the Minister of State. The Government are ignoring the huge changes that have taken place since the passage of the Act. Chief among them is the more than doubling of Royal Mail’s profits to £403 million, which calls into question assertions that there is no prospect of the Royal Mail being self-financing in the future.
	Having nationalised the organisation’s debts by taking on its pension liabilities, the Government now want to privatise the profit at the very time it is making money. How on earth does that make any sense? Now that the Government have determined to pursue this course, there is every sign that this treasured national institution is being sold off on the cheap to get income quickly to a Treasury whose economic strategy has failed. As long as the Government fail to address key questions about Royal Mail, which I will outline, that will be the conclusion that people will be entitled to reach.
	I have the following questions for the Secretary of State. First, Royal Mail faces competition from other postal service operators who are not subject to the same high performance and service quality standards as it is, putting it at a competitive disadvantage. How will this not depress the sale price, and what will he do about it? Secondly, this cannot be allowed to put the Post Office at risk. What guarantees can he give that a privately owned Royal Mail will renew the agreement under which the Post Office provides Royal Mail products, which is essential to the Post Office’s future? What will happen in 2022? Is it not the case that he cannot give any guarantees on what will happen when the agreement expires? On the future of the Post Office, when can we expect to hear more on his plans for mutualisation? On what date will that commence?
	Thirdly and finally, is it not the case that there is every prospect that a privatised Royal Mail will seek to sell off valuable locations in high-value urban centres for a fast buck, which will be replaced by distant depots, sorting offices and the rest, which are hard to get to for consumers and small businesses? Yes, there have been successful privatisations in times past which have delivered for the British people, but there have also been examples in rail and energy under the last Conservative Government
	which were badly executed privatisations that resulted in a long-term bad deal for consumers and small businesses. It is therefore not surprising that the British people oppose this move today.

Vincent Cable: I think the most interesting and eloquent part of the Opposition’s response was what the hon. Gentleman did not say. He did not say that the next Labour Government, if there is one, will renationalise Royal Mail. He is opposed to privatisation, but he is not proposing to reverse it. That eloquent silence will be heard not just by the investors, but by the trade unions, so we know clearly that we are now on an irreversible course.
	The hon. Gentleman talks about pressing on with this sale and his colleagues use the phrase “fire sale”. This is the longest fire sale in history. It has taken five years from the inception of the process under a Labour Government. He talks about self-financing. He knows perfectly well what the rules of public finance are—that a nationalised institution is not able to borrow freely in the markets, as it would wish. It is useful to compare the experience of Royal Mail with what is happening in, for example, Germany. The hon. Gentleman often cites Germany as a role model for good industrial policy, and we have many lessons to learn from it. Germany has a privatised mail system. In the past two years it has invested €750 million and will do so next year, raised on the market, competing ahead of Royal Mail in what are increasingly international markets. I hope he heeds that experience.
	The hon. Gentleman worries about a race to the bottom in competition. The main competition for Royal Mail has not come from private competitors; it has come from technology. Within the past 10 years, mail has lost 25% of its business because of e-mail and we have to respond to that. Royal Mail was declining. It was in danger of losing the universal service obligation. We are now giving it the tools to compete and to be a successful enterprise—something that will benefit the country and the workers within it.

Nick Gibb: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement about the floatation of Royal Mail. That is long overdue. He gave a commitment to no further closures by Post Office Ltd. Will he therefore look into proposals by Post Office Ltd to close the Crown post office and move it to the back of a shop, against the wishes of thousands of my constituents and against the wishes and interests of businesses located in that part of Littlehampton?

Vincent Cable: There are indeed many individual cases which are difficult, often because postmasters or postmistresses wish to retire, but the big picture in respect of the Post Office, which I hope my hon. Friend will recognise, is that we have stopped the mass closure of post offices that took place under the previous Government. We have a network of 11,500 post offices which we are preserving. This Government, despite the financial pressures on them, committed themselves over this spending review to spending £1.3 billion on modernising and upgrading the Post Office and giving it a real future.

Alan Johnson: The Postal Services Act 2011 insisted that the universal postal service must be financially sustainable.
	Given the huge loss of rural services in privatised Post Offices across the world, particularly in New Zealand, what magic wand will the right hon. Gentleman give to Ofcom to turn rural services from loss-making to profit-making?

Vincent Cable: Of course there is no magic wand, but with a combination of modernisation and support, and maintaining community-based post offices, which we are committed to do, many of the warnings that the Opposition have given us will be superfluous.

Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State confirm that what he has announced is consistent with the Liberal Democrats’ 2010 manifesto and the coalition agreement, in that only a minority of shares will be put out to the private sector for purchase and the majority interest will be retained by the Government and the employees? That is what I support. I do not support a majority sale.

Vincent Cable: I made it very clear that the Government plan to become a minority shareholder in the company and that the majority will be a combination of shares sold in the market and shares held by employees. We are not predicting at this stage how far the sale will go, as that will depend on the market.

Nick Brown: What sorts of significant investors has the Secretary of State in mind?

Vincent Cable: There will be a combination of institutional and private investors. There will be a retail offering that can be obtained by two routes: by applying to the Government directly over the internet, and through brokers. Ownership will be widely dispersed.

Edward Leigh: Some 20 years ago, as Post Office Minister, I tried to privatise Royal Mail. We could not get it through because of Labour intransigence. Labour Members were wrong then and they are wrong now. Has not the only result of the delay been a lack of investment and an inability on the part of this publicly owned corporation to respond to international and technological challenges?

Vincent Cable: I know that it is tempting to blame the Labour party for a lot of things, but I seem to remember that the attempted privatisation under the hon. Gentleman’s stewardship ground to a halt because Mrs Thatcher was against it. We have moved on and circumstances are different. Indeed, this is a substantial commitment to making a real success of what the Prime Minister called a very important public service.

Peter Hain: Why does the Secretary of State not consider the kind of business model used by Welsh Water, which the Library has advised me is perfectly compatible with the Act, which successfully combines social obligations and commercial imperatives and raises capital more cheaply without contributing to Government debt? A survey by the Tory Bow Group shows that 67% of the public oppose privatisation, as do 96% of the work force. Why does he not stop dogmatically pursuing a flotation and instead adopt that positive, popular and viable alternative?

Vincent Cable: There is a long and complex debate about how water companies are operated. Of course, they have extremely high gearing because of the nature of their business and do not require anything like the same level of equity. We have a model that combines the best use of equity markets and the level of debt that the company will need to finance its future investment.

Tony Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although Royal Mail’s financial position has improved, it still lags considerably far behind international competitors such as Deutsche Post, Belgian Post and Austrian Post? Is not the simple fact that Royal Mail, as part of the public sector, has its hands tied in a way that its international competitors do not?

Vincent Cable: Yes, it is tied because of the limitations on borrowing possibilities and what many people perceive to be the potential for political intervention. The companies that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—in Austria, Belgium and Germany—all of which are privatised, are indeed highly profitable, and they also invest heavily. They are making deep inroads into the international logistics market and it is time Royal Mail was competing successfully with them.

Caroline Lucas: As the Secretary of State has said, Royal Mail’s performance has gone from strength to strength, so why will the Government not commit to building on what has been achieved and keep it in public ownership, where we can guarantee that future profits will be invested in what is good for Britain, rather than what is good for a few select shareholders?

Vincent Cable: We are building on the success of the modernisation of the last few years, and I pay tribute to the management and the work force who have made that possible. The one factor that the hon. Lady’s model does not deal with is how a company of that kind raises substantial amounts of capital when it would be in direct competition with schools, hospitals and other bodies that require public sector investment. That is the big inhibition at the moment.

Julian Smith: Settle post office, deep in the Yorkshire dales, has benefited hugely from the Government’s Post Office reforms. Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the most rural areas of Britain will benefit even more from the changes he has announced today?

Vincent Cable: Post Office Ltd is a separate organisation under a publicly owned umbrella, and within that there are large numbers of highly competitive, self-employed entrepreneurs who run the post office network. We are supporting it substantially, modernising it and preventing large-scale closures. There is indeed an excellent future for the hon. Gentleman’s local post office.

Pat McFadden: The Secretary of State said that this process began five years ago with the Hooper review, and he is right, but will he also confirm that the critical difference between the Bill he passed and the one proposed by the previous Government was that our Bill contained a clause stating that Royal Mail must remain publicly owned?

Vincent Cable: Indeed. We are moving to a higher level of private involvement than was envisaged under the 2008 proposals, and the reason, which I have given very clearly, is that that minority state ownership would not have enabled the company to borrow as freely as it should.

Charles Hendry: I warmly welcome the proposals. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the Government’s role in setting performance standards and ensuring they are met, specifically in relation to the proportion of letters and packages that should be delivered in a certain time scale and what is an appropriate price for consumers to pay for that service?

Vincent Cable: The Government will not be involved in day-to-day oversight of Royal Mail; it will be governed by the regulator, which will set the appropriate standard.

Jack Dromey: Royal Mail workers and their management have co-operated in a process of radical change to transform Royal Mail into an efficient, effective and profitable world-class company. The public do not want privatisation, and posties do not want privatisation. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to Royal Mail workers, who by a 96% vote in a ballot said, “Keep your bribe. We want to remain public posties”?

Vincent Cable: There was a substantial vote on that consultative ballot, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that it takes precedence over the vote of the House of Commons, which after all brought the process into being. I have already freely acknowledged that the CWU, despite the rhetoric we sometimes hear from it, has played a very constructive role in the modernisation, and we want to help it, as a result of this share offer, to become further aligned in the long term with the interests of the company. If the company makes money and succeeds, the CWU will derive additional benefit.

Andrew Bridgen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the six-day-a-week service will continue after privatisation and across the whole country?

Vincent Cable: Absolutely. That is the fundamental of the universal service obligation, which can be changed only by an affirmative vote of this House.

Adrian Bailey: The Minister acknowledged the importance of the contractual relationship between Royal Mail and the sustainability of the post office network, and in a previous answer he acknowledged the issue of elderly sub-postmasters retiring. What assessment has he made of the viability of the post office network, given the uncertainty that the privatisation of Royal Mail will create in the minds of people who might take on post offices when sub-postmasters retire?

Vincent Cable: As I explained, there is currently a 10-year agreement in place, which takes us into the Parliament after next. Few other businesses operate with that degree of regulatory certainty.

Ben Gummer: This is a very good day, because privatisations are good, which is why they have not been reversed in the past. It is also a good day because this privatisation includes shares for workers. Will the Secretary of State elaborate on the 10% shareholding that the Government will be giving free of charge to Royal Mail employees?

Vincent Cable: I do not think that a great deal of elaboration is necessary. As I said, the shareholding will be free of charge. In addition, workers will have priority, should they wish to buy an additional shareholding. The principle under which the share scheme will operate is that it will be locked in for three years to give the arrangement longevity. I imagine that most postal workers will want to hold the shares for at least five years to take full advantage of the tax incentives available, for example the absence of capital gains tax, under the current scheme.

Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State might be sincere in what he says, but does he not realise that the vast majority of the public, particularly in the countryside and in rural areas, just do not believe that the universal service is guaranteed, because they know what has happened in other privatised industries? How can he ensure that it really will be guaranteed? I do not believe it, most Opposition Members probably do not believe it, and Conservative Members who fought against it last time, when Margaret Thatcher was against it, do not believe it. This is a very wrong decision.

Vincent Cable: The best way of reassuring the public is to demolish some of the myths. The fact is that the universal service obligation was clearly underwritten by Parliament; it is embedded in legislation and cannot be removed. I hope the hon. Lady will pass that message on to her constituents.

Richard Fuller: May I commend the Secretary of State for this most welcome announcement? The people in my constituency who will be most concerned about it will be the postal workers. Will he spend a moment reassuring them about their future in a privatised Royal Mail? In particular, what does he anticipate the additional capital that a private Royal Mail will be able to take on will do for them and their jobs?

Vincent Cable: As I explained, Royal Mail has offered a three-year deal to the workers which they are still considering. It is relatively generous in respect of pay—considerably in excess of the public sector norm. They are being given assurances on the nature of work and the absence of any further outsourcing. They will benefit under these proposals from the appreciation of the shares they receive free of charge. I would have thought that if I were a Royal Mail worker thinking of my individual situation, I would think this a very good deal.

Gerald Kaufman: Is not this statement a total and cynical violation of the election manifesto on which the Secretary of State fought the last election—which, with some distaste, I hold in my hand? Is not this typical of a Liberal Democrat who made promises on the basis that he would never expect to have to carry them out? He said
	that there will be no further closure programme. How does he reconcile that with the plan to close Wellington street post office in Gorton in my constituency, which has aroused fury in local residents?

Vincent Cable: I find it extraordinary that Labour Members are raising the issue of post office closures. I think that three major waves of closures took place under the previous Government. We have stopped that and we are investing very heavily in new infrastructure to enable post offices to compete.

Ian Swales: Public sector Royal Mail wants to close a delivery office at South Bank in my constituency and has recently stopped sorting mail in the Tees valley altogether for the 750,000 people who live there. Does my right hon. Friend agree that private sector Royal Mail will be more likely to review such decisions for overall value for money and customer service?

Vincent Cable: Yes, I am sure that it should do that, but I do not wish to comment on the details of the industrial dispute that has led to that difficulty.

Lilian Greenwood: Does the Secretary of State share my concern that a private buyer is more likely to sell off delivery offices in town centres, moving them to out-of-town and less accessible locations for those picking up parcels? What guarantees can he give to consumers and small businesses who rely on our Royal Mail sorting offices?

Vincent Cable: I thought that in the first part of her question the hon. Lady was perhaps mixing up the Post Office and Royal Mail. Of course, the post office network remains publicly owned, with all the implications involved. The private Royal Mail will be able to use its assets to the best possible advantage. Of course there will be change, much of it driven by technology.

Stephen Metcalfe: Why does my right hon. Friend think that Labour Members and their CWU friends have been exaggerating the myths about the risks faced by Royal Mail, other than for their own political gain?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. I am trying to work constructively with the CWU, as is my colleague, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon). We realise that it is in its interests that this succeeds, and we are trying to persuade it to work with us constructively.

David Simpson: The Business Secretary said that as part of a three-year agreement Royal Mail is prepared to give a number of assurances. Ultimately, what control will the Government have in seeing that those assurances are implemented?

Vincent Cable: Let me clear: these were not Government commitments but assurances by the management of Royal Mail, who will, I hope, reach a satisfactory agreement with their work force. It is currently under dispute, but there will be a traditional type of industrial agreement and I am sure that it will be honoured.

Robert Halfon: I welcome modernisation of the Post Office, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the Post Office and Royal Mail are not just places of economic capital but important parts of our social fabric? Please can he reassure hard-working Harlow postmen and postwomen that privatisation will not lead to a repeat of what happened with some of the utility companies, particularly water companies, where they have avoided tax, directors have awarded themselves huge bonuses, and prices have gone up by ridiculous amounts?

Vincent Cable: Of course we need to get tough with systematic tax avoidance. My colleagues in the Treasury have been setting out how we want to do that, because it was allowed to happen for far too long. The essential point is that this is not just a typical business; it is a major national institution with social obligations. That is why I began by saying that the overarching objective is to secure the universal service obligation.

Lisa Nandy: The Secretary of State only has to look at the rail and energy companies to see examples of how badly executed privatisation has led to sub-standard service and high prices that put those services out of the reach of many of my constituents. Is he seriously telling this House that he is going to ignore the overwhelming concern of the majority of the British public and fail to protect such a vital institution?

Vincent Cable: We had 12 years of a Labour Government who had an opportunity to reverse many of the privatisations that occurred, and they did not. I presume that was a recognition that the balance of advantage was positive.

George Freeman: I welcome the Department’s bravery in setting out this initiative so that Royal Mail can gain access to the investment and innovation that are available to other competing services. I particularly welcome the statutory protection for the six-day universal service for rural areas and the provisions for employee ownership. Does the Secretary of State agree that those in this House who want to support public services do them no favours by locking them in aspic and denying them that which makes the private sector able to flourish and succeed?

Vincent Cable: Yes, I am sure that is absolutely right. I hope that those words will also be taken to heart by the CWU.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that about 30 years ago Mrs Thatcher privatised countless public utilities? It was called the share-owning democracy: the British people would hold the shares, they would last for ever, it would be nirvana. The net result was that all those public utilities—oil, gas, water, electricity—are now owned abroad. What guarantees can he give, as a little Liberal, on just how we manage to keep this so-called share-owning democracy in this country? Why doesn’t he do the decent thing—meet Billy Hayes and the CWU, scrap this, act like a man, and get back to where he used to be?

Vincent Cable: I have perfectly amicable conversations with Mr Hayes and his colleagues, and they will undoubtedly continue. I was not sure whether the hon. Gentleman’s tirade was directed at privatisation or foreign ownership; they are rather different issues. I think that
	foreign owners have made a major contribution to this country. Some of our leading manufacturing companies are run by foreign owners who have invested in the long term and have made a real commitment to this country. I am certainly not going to impose nationalistic restrictions on ownership.

Gavin Williamson: Ever since the penny black, we have had the monarch’s image on our stamps. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Queen’s image—the Queen’s head—will remain on our stamps?

Vincent Cable: Indeed. That was raised when the Postal Services Act 2011 went through the House two and half years ago. The commitments were made then, and they are embedded in legislation.

Ann McKechin: Will the Secretary of State confirm what proportion of the sale proceeds will be reinvested in the business rather than taken as profit?
	[Official Report, 15 July 2013, Vol. 566, c. 3-4MC.]

Vincent Cable: We are not making any advance predictions as to what the sale proceeds will be or how they will be utilised. We are giving Royal Mail the commercial freedom to make those decisions itself.

David Mowat: Will the Secretary of State confirm that having access to private capital and no longer competing with schools and hospitals for capital will protect jobs in the medium term as well as protecting the universal service obligation?

Vincent Cable: Yes, it will. There is a theological argument, as it were, about the circumstances under which public agencies should borrow, but at the moment the rules are such that Royal Mail would be directly competing with capital investment in schools and hospitals. That is not healthy, and it is much more sensible that the company is put in a position where it can utilise capital from the markets.

Michael Weir: My hon. Friends and I steadfastly oppose the privatisation; that will come as no surprise to the Secretary of State. He says that the USO is safe, but Ofcom has already abandoned price controls apart from on second-class letters and confirmed that there is nothing to stop zonal pricing being introduced. Under what definition does that make it safe?

Vincent Cable: It is a universal service obligation—that is what it says and that is what it means. It is embedded in law and there is no prospect of the scare the hon. Gentleman has just tried to generate for Scotland being manifested in reality.

Alun Cairns: Plans to privatise Royal Mail started well before the general election and I congratulate all those who have brought it up to standard and ready for this market opportunity. Postmen stand to gain significantly in financial terms and management will be able to raise capital for investment. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that customers will also be protected, that the robust regulatory arrangement will remain with Ofcom and that it will stand up on their behalf?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman will know that consumer standards are indeed embedded in the system of regulation. In particular, there is an agreed cap on the price of a second class stamp, and that remains.

Katy Clark: As a result of the Government’s legislation, TNT now provides postal services in parts of London. It employs staff on zero-hour contracts at £7.10 per hour. Apparently it employs too many staff, so every day postal workers are sent home. Is this the face of the terms and conditions of postal workers in the future?

Vincent Cable: As the hon. Lady may have heard, I am having a look at the evidence on zero-hour contracts. Many employees as well as employers think it is a perfectly sensible system, but there have been complaints. We are looking at the issue and trying to make a balanced judgment.

Charlie Elphicke: In my constituency, Dover and Deal is one of the fastest growing areas for internet businesses. Is it not the case that the protections for deliveries and collections are not just a matter of good politics but important to our economy? Many of the small, internet businesses in my area depend on that security.

Vincent Cable: They do, indeed. Trade through the internet is one of the things that Britain does exceptionally well. We are probably the leading country in the world in internet-based commerce. By strengthening Royal Mail, we will be able to create a platform to enable that to increase even further.

Gordon Banks: As a shadow business Minister I opposed this proposal in the Postal Services Bill Committee and in the House. I also oppose what the Secretary of State has said today. May I press him further on the link between Royal Mail and the Post Office? Is he able to guarantee that, post-2022, the vital link between the Post Office and Royal Mail will survive? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman says he opposes what we are doing, but why does he not say that he wants to reverse it? That is the question. There is a 10-year agreement, which offers a remarkable degree of security for the Post Office. Frankly, my mind boggles at the fact that the Opposition regard 10 years as inadequate.

Damian Collins: I welcome the statement and think it offers the best future for Royal Mail. Does the Secretary of State agree with the remarks made by the chief executive of Royal Mail before the Postal Services Bill Committee? She said that, without privatisation,
	“you will see a continuation of what have been chronic problems for Royal Mail.”––[Official Report, Postal Services Public Bill Committee, 9 November 2010; c. 4, Q3.]

Vincent Cable: There will be—and those chronic problems are most manifest in the fact that in five of the past 10 years Royal Mail has made losses. It is not a viable enterprise and is unable to sustain the universal service obligation. This gives it the real opportunity to do that.

Bill Esterson: Does the Secretary of State not understand that postmasters, postmistresses and their customers all have grave concerns? They know that their branches are already in trouble and remember the botched privatisations of rail and the utilities during the 1980s and ’90s. They also recognise that the danger is that we will see the same problem—increased prices and reduced services.

Vincent Cable: Post offices have had a remarkably good deal—I am repeating what I have said many times. We have put a line under the large-scale closures repeatedly experienced under the previous Government. Despite the pressures on public finance, we are investing £1.3 billion. Post offices have a 10-year agreement to provide stability in their link with Royal Mail. This very difficult business is being sustained in an exceptionally attractive environment.

Julian Sturdy: I warmly welcome the statement: modernisation of Royal Mail is long overdue. A six-day delivery service is a lifeline for isolated rural communities. May I stress to my right hon. Friend how important it is to maintain that and ask him to do all he can to make sure it happens?

Vincent Cable: That does not require any effort from me: the hon. Gentleman is a Member of this House who voted through legislation that embeds that commitment in law.

Michael Connarty: I noted that in his list of comparators the Secretary of State did not mention the Netherlands, where TNT is running the service in the same way it is now being run in London. He did not mention Network Rail, which is allowed to borrow on the private market. What he did mention was that a future Minister would be able to direct Ofcom in any way possible. Given that the Institute of Economic Affairs called this morning for a ban on the universal service obligation, for zonal pricing and for not making deliveries six days a week in the countryside, is it not true that, if this privatisation goes through, the only way to guarantee that the conditions in the Bill remain active will be to vote Labour at the next election?

Vincent Cable: I am struck by the fact that, instead of dealing with the proposal on its merits, Opposition Members are inventing fantasies about zonal pricing and the abandonment of the terms of the contract that Royal Mail is offering. There is no realistic prospect of those things happening. Enormous security is provided by an Act of Parliament. That should be enough for most people.

Robin Walker: As we all know, Labour tried but failed to bring private capital into Royal Mail, and its botched attempt to do that was opposed by Members on both sides of the House. Is not the difference between this and Labour’s set of proposals that this set protects the universal service, investment in the Post Office and postal workers’ pensions and gives postal workers a real stake in the future of this great British business?

Vincent Cable: The previous Government’s capitulation on their Bill was one of their less glorious episodes. We have maintained the best principles of that effort and
	have carried it one step further. We are now implementing it, and it has all the positive features described by my hon. Friend.

Sheila Gilmore: The emphasis that the Secretary of State has placed on what a future Labour Government would do in terms of privatisation suggests that the timing of this privatisation has as much to do with getting it through before the next general election as with getting the best price.

Vincent Cable: I think the hon. Lady has a poor memory, although she might remember that this was the first major Bill that this Government introduced—a fact that I recall because I introduced it.

Andrew Jones: I worked for a newly privatised company in the 1980s and the commercial transformation was fantastic, so I welcome this statement. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Royal Mail will enjoy the broader commercial freedoms that allow other companies to compete? For Royal Mail, that means access to capital and the freedom to seek broader commercial opportunities, such as its European business, to make the business stronger for the future.

Vincent Cable: I believe that my hon. Friend’s experience was with the National Freight Corporation, which was one of the many successful privatisations that nobody would dream of reversing. He makes the specific point that there are major opportunities for Royal Mail in international trade through logistics. That market is now opening up. One of our central objectives in the single market negotiations is to lift the barriers to e-commerce, and Royal Mail has the potential to benefit substantially from that, provided it invests substantially. This action will enable it to do that.

David Hanson: Is the Secretary of State able to give a guarantee that, if this proposal proceeds, my constituents in rural north Wales will pay exactly the same for a stamp as constituents in Westminster?

Vincent Cable: Yes, of course, and the right hon. Gentleman should know that because he voted through the legislation to provide that guarantee.

John Glen: Although I warmly welcome today’s announcement, may I press the Secretary of State to confirm that in rural areas such as those around Salisbury there will never be a prospect of a second-tier service opening up, even after the first three years beyond this measure taking effect?

Vincent Cable: I have repeated many times that the universal service obligation is embedded in law and being policed by Ofcom. That is the situation and it will continue.

Susan Elan Jones: The Government’s remarkable achievement in uniting the National Federation of SubPostmasters, CWU members and the Countryside Alliance is a sign of how appalling this decision is. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is high time that he considered the matter properly and reflected on its impact on rural areas?

Vincent Cable: We have devoted four to five years of parliamentary time to reflecting on this process, and we are now doing something about it. The hon. Lady includes bodies such as the National Federation of SubPostmasters in her roll call of institutions, but this announcement has nothing to do with the Post Office, which remains under public ownership and is supported in the ways I have described.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Secretary of State confirm to Royal Mail employees in Kettering that under these proposals they face a 9% pay deal, that the change in ownership will not trigger any change in their terms and conditions, that they will be entitled to their fair share of up to 10% free shares in the new business, and that they will be part of the biggest employee share scheme of any major privatisation?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman summarises the benefits admirably, and I would be amazed if, when they sit down and reflect calmly, members of the Communications Workers Union do not see it the same way.

Clive Efford: In his statement the Secretary of State said, “The Government have retained powers to direct Ofcom with respect to certain regulatory levers, such as reviewing the financial burden of the universal service”. What can that mean other than differential charges for a universal service in less-populated areas and in rural areas, fragmentation of the service, and casual labour used to deliver the post in areas that they have no knowledge about?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman is venturing into a fantasy world. The service obligation is universal and I was providing reassurance that the Government have back-stop powers to protect that obligation, not to undermine it.

Andrew Stephenson: I warmly welcome today’s announcement. It was a pleasure to serve on the Postal Services Bill Committee and watch the previous Government’s half-baked privatisation plans become the excellent proposals before us today. Does the Secretary of State agree that the proposals represent an excellent deal for postmen and postwomen across the UK, allowing Royal Mail to modernise and win a higher proportion of the rapidly expanding packages market?

Vincent Cable: Yes, that is absolutely right. Royal Mail is making money from packaging although it is losing money from traditional mail delivery. It is therefore important that it has the investment to take that packaging business forward.

Andrew Gwynne: I was frankly astounded and appalled at the Secretary of State’s attitude towards zero-hours contracts in the postal services. Will he confirm that there is nothing contradictory about maintaining universal service delivery across the United Kingdom, and the introduction of regional and zonal pricing for those services? Will he stand at the Dispatch Box and say that there will be no moves towards regional or zonal pricing in the future?

Vincent Cable: There will be no moves in that direction. I am slightly astounded by the hon. Gentleman’s comments on zero-hours contracts. Such contracts operated for many years under the Labour Government, who chose to do nothing about them whatsoever. I am the first Secretary of State who has investigated exactly what is going on in that market.

Rob Wilson: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement; this is probably the most sustainable way of ensuring the future of Royal Mail. Will he explain why he has settled on a figure of 10% for company shareholding for posties, and say whether there is scope to consider a slightly bigger stake for posties in Reading and the country so that workers have a bigger say in what happens in Royal Mail?

Vincent Cable: The legislation provided for at least 10% and we are proposing a 10% free share offer. Postal workers will have priority if there is excessive demand, and stakes could be built up considerably beyond 10%.

Margaret Ritchie: What long-term decisions will the Secretary of State take, based on only three-year assurances about jobs and services?

Vincent Cable: They were not my assurances; they were given by the employer, which is Royal Mail. A three-year agreement is perhaps rather long for much of industry, and the work force will have to negotiate again with its future employers.

Stephen Doughty: I recently visited the Cardiff mail centre in my constituency and the Penarth delivery office. Given the provenance of the chief executive of Royal Mail, will the Secretary of State assure me that he will not be taking lessons on universal delivery from Canada Post. In many rural areas and small towns in Canada there is no universal delivery service and residents have to pick up their mail from smaller delivery and sorting offices?

Vincent Cable: If there are particular defects or a genuine breakdown in universal services in an area we can consider that, but that is not my understanding of how the service operates.

Jonathan Edwards: The Secretary of State mentioned increased profitability in states where postal services have been privatised, but was that achieved on the back of increased prices and reduced delivery days, as in Holland? What does he think the effect will be on small businesses located in rural areas if costs spiral and delivery days are reduced?

Vincent Cable: Costs will not spiral and, as I said in an earlier answer, the regulator has imposed a cap on the cost of a second class stamp. Other elements that small businesses in rural areas need, such as a guarantee of the universal service obligation, lie at the heart of what I have been saying this afternoon.

Mr Speaker: We are grateful to the Secretary of State and to colleagues. Fifty-two Back Benchers questioned him in 38 minutes of Back-Bench time. If other Ministers were as brief in responding, we would get everybody in every time.

Middle East and North Africa

William Hague: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the UK’s response to events in the middle east and north Africa. Members on both sides will be concerned about the situation in Egypt. Our embassy in Cairo is offering assistance to British nationals, and we advise against all non-essential travel to Egypt outside the Red sea resorts.
	I made it clear last week that the United Kingdom does not support military intervention in democratic politics, although we recognise that many Egyptians welcomed the action that was taken. I have been in close contact with the acting Egyptian Foreign Minister, Mohammed Kamel Amr, and I have emphasised the importance of an urgent return to democratic processes and expressed our deep concern at the deaths of more than 50 protestors.
	The Egyptian authorities have announced an interim Prime Minister, Hazen Beblawi, and a timetable for new elections. The process should be inclusive, open to all parties, and lead to free and fair elections. That should therefore mean the release of political leaders and journalists, agreement on a new constitution and the checks and balances of a democratic system, and urgent steps to reform Egypt’s economy.
	Two years ago the Egyptian people demanded a real democratic voice, and jobs not corruption in the economy. So far their leaders have failed to deliver that. However, the hunger and aspiration for a better Egypt is as strong and urgent as ever. It is vital for their own country and the region that all sides rise above self-interest and work towards an open, democratic and reforming Egypt.
	There is no alternative to the long, painstaking work of making a success of transitions in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen. That is why, for example, I announced in a written statement to the House yesterday that the UK will train 2,000 Libyan armed forces personnel in basic infantry skills. That is part of a broader effort with the US, Italy and France, agreed at the G8, to help the Libyan Government disarm and integrate militias and improve security.
	Democratic change is a process, not an event, and those countries will see setbacks as well as successes. However, we should not lose faith with the people of the region, the vast majority of whom seek prosperity and dignity for their countries. We must therefore provide patient, long-term support to Governments and civil society in the region, as we are doing through the Deauville partnership that we are promoting during our G8 presidency, and the UK-Arab partnership initiative that supports women’s participation, electoral reform, economic development, and the building of democratic institutions. Achieving lasting positive change will be the work of a generation.
	That goes hand in hand with our support for the middle east peace process, and I pay tribute to Secretary Kerry for tirelessly preparing the ground for a return to negotiations. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and I have visited Israeli and Palestinian leaders in recent weeks, to urge them to enter negotiations. We are ready to work
	with the EU and Arab nations and offer practical support, and I call on Israelis and Palestinians to show the necessary courage. This may be the last opportunity to achieve a two-state solution. That also requires progress on Gaza because the status quo there is not sustainable. All sides need to implement the ceasefire agreement, which includes a permanent end to rocket attacks and an easing of Israeli restrictions.
	We will make every effort to persuade Iran to negotiate an end to the crisis over its nuclear programme. We look to a new Government in Iran to give a comprehensive response to the proposal by E3 plus 3 for a confidence-building measure, and to co-operate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency. We will respond in good faith to positive action by Iran. We are ready to improve our relations on a step by step basis, but no one should doubt our resolve to prevent nuclear proliferation.
	The middle east is vital to our national interests and security. It would be a major strategic error for our country or our allies to turn away from the region. That includes the conflict in Syria, where the death toll is mounting, extremism and sectarianism are growing and the risk of the total collapse of the country is ever-present. The Assad regime has ramped up its military assault using air strikes, Scud missiles and artillery. As many as 13,000 Syrian civilians have been killed since my last statement to the House on 20 May, and UN figures for the total number of deaths will soon exceed 100,000 people. There are 4.25 million internally displaced people inside Syria, and 1.7 million refugees are placing an immense strain on the stability and economies of neighbouring countries. By the end of the year, 10 million people could be in need of assistance—almost half the population of Syria.
	We judge that Iran is providing personnel, equipment, weapons and financial assistance to the Assad regime, which is also being supported by thousands of Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon. We call on Syria to allow the UN unfettered access to investigate incidents of chemical weapons use in Syria. Those responsible for any attacks should be held to account. We have passed evidence of the use of sarin in Syria to the UN, and we were concerned to see new, unconfirmed reports over the weekend of chemical attacks in Homs.
	Faced with the growing and protracted crisis, to which there is no end in sight, we have three objectives: to promote a political solution in Syria, to help save lives and to protect the national security of the United Kingdom. First, a political transition in Syria remains the best hope of ending the violence. I attended meetings of the core group of the Friends of Syria in Amman on 22 May and Doha on 22 June. We agreed to increase practical support to the opposition and to channel that support through the National Coalition. We all want a political solution, but that will not be possible if legitimate opposition can be obliterated.
	On 17 June the G8, including Russia, re-affirmed support for a second conference in Geneva, leading to the creation of a transitional governing body with full executive powers in Syria. Since May, the National Coalition has expanded its membership significantly, to include other opposition groups and the moderate armed opposition. It has pledged to increase the provision of services in opposition-held areas and to build up local governance structures. On Saturday the National Coalition elected a new president, Ahmed al-Jarba, and we will
	work with him to help the Syrian opposition promote its vision of a free, democratic and pluralistic Syria that defends the rights of all Syrians. The regime offensive of recent weeks has made it even harder to bring a Geneva conference together, but we will continue our diplomacy with the US, Russia, Arab nations and the UN to bring about a conference while preparing for the risk that the conflict worsens.
	So, secondly, we are working to save lives. We have already provided more than £12 million in non-lethal assistance to the National Coalition, local councils and civil society. We have provided armoured vehicles, body armour, generators, communications equipment and other non-lethal equipment, as well as training for human rights activists to document human rights violations. We will provide a further £20 million, which we have already announced, in non-lethal assistance in the coming months, including communications support and training for the National Coalition. We are exploring the possibility of helping to establish civilian policing structures in opposition-held areas, and the supply of protective equipment against the use of chemical and biological weapons. This week we will again deploy UK experts to Syria’s borders to train health professionals and human rights defenders to document evidence of rape and sexual violence.
	As I explained to the House in March, we are providing technical assistance for the protection of civilians. That includes advice and training on how to maintain security in areas no longer controlled by the regime, on co-ordination between civilian and military councils, on how to protect civilians and minimise the risks to them and on how to maintain security during a transition. On the question of any future lethal support—arming the opposition or intervening militarily ourselves—the Government’s position has not changed. No decision has been made, and any decision would be put to the House on a substantive motion.
	We have doubled the United Kingdom’s humanitarian assistance for Syria and its neighbours to £348 million over the next two years. That includes £50 million for Syrian refugees and host communities in Jordan, and £50 million for Lebanon, which the International Development Secretary announced on Monday while in the region. I condemn yesterday’s bomb attack in Beirut and call on all Lebanese parties to work together to resist any efforts by extremists and terrorists to undermine Lebanon’s hard-won peace.
	The longer the Syria conflict continues, the more important it becomes to provide stabilisation and development support where we are able to do so, as well as urgent humanitarian assistance. The UK will continue to lead efforts to improve the effectiveness of the international humanitarian response. Last week, the International Development Secretary hosted a meeting with like-minded states and the heads of key agencies, and she will also host a separate event to plan international support to Syrian after a transition.
	Thirdly and finally, we are determined to protect UK national security against risks posed by groups in Syria that are affiliated or aligned to al-Qaeda, including the al-Nusra Front and al-Qaeda in Iraq, and that are taking advantage of ungoverned space created by the conflict. We judge that more than 100 UK-linked individuals
	of concern have now travelled to Syria, and some individuals returning to the UK could pose a long-term terrorist threat.
	The most important step in tackling the threat of terrorism is to end the conflict and secure a transition to a new, legitimate government in Syria. However, extremists should be in no doubt of the action that we are prepared to take to protect our national security. Our intelligence agencies and police are working to identify and disrupt potential threats, and the police have the power to examine and detain individuals at the UK border to investigate any concerns of involvement in terrorism. UK nationals of concern seeking to travel from the UK can have their passports refused or withdrawn, and foreign nationals resident in the UK can have their leave to remain revoked if they are deemed non-conducive to the public good.
	International diplomacy has failed so far to resolve the crisis in Syria. The UK will continue to play a leading role in promoting a political solution, even though we may have to persist over many months; in saving lives, on which we can be proud of the contribution our country makes; and in safeguarding our national security at all times. We will continue to help countries in the middle east and north Africa make a success of their transitions, while keeping faith with their peoples, protecting the UK’s interests and trying to widen international peace and security.

Douglas Alexander: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it.
	I come first to events in Egypt. Although the events of the past two weeks have been a major setback for democracy, they need not represent an irreversible trend. The role of the military in any democracy must be both clearly defined and subject to Executive oversight, so the priority must now be a return to civilian rule through a credible transition process that results in swift, fair and free elections. I welcome the recent statement by interim president Mansour setting a deadline for new elections to be held before February 2014. However, recent reports suggest that not all parties have accepted that process, and there have been recent statements from the Muslim Brotherhood apparently refusing to take part. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is vital that the transition process from interim to full civilian government must be inclusive and representative if it is to be seen to be legitimate?
	Recent reports of the arrest and imprisonment of political activists, representatives and journalists in Egypt are deeply concerning, including reports today about Egypt’s prosecutor’s office issuing warrants for a number of people affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Will the Foreign Secretary make clear the British Government’s position on political prisoners in Egypt?
	Egypt’s long-term future will be secured not simply by an end to violence but also by the start of economic recovery. The Foreign Secretary spoke of the Deauville partnership. How much of the $38 billion originally intended from that fund, as cited in his answer to me in October 2011, has now been allocated? If he cannot give the figure this afternoon, will he place a note in the Library setting out the allocation figures?
	I turn to the ongoing crisis in Syria. I welcome, of course, the confirmation of the uplift in the UK’s commitment to help alleviate the humanitarian crisis, but the situation is none the less deteriorating. Only this morning, the Intelligence and Security Committee published a report that expresses “serious concern” about al-Qaeda elements gaining access to the “vast stockpiles” of chemical weapons within Syria. It is therefore a matter of real regret that the recent G8 summit in Northern Ireland, hosted by the United Kingdom, failed to deliver the breakthrough that we all wanted to see in relation to Syria. We all hoped that a firm date would be set for the start of Geneva 2, but even that was missing from the final communiqué. Will the Foreign Secretary set out a little more specifically what he judges the prospects to be for Geneva 2 being convened in the weeks and months ahead? I welcome his commitment that the Prime Minister intends to recall Parliament and call for a vote on a substantive motion if any decision is taken by the Government to send lethal military equipment to the Syrian opposition.
	May I ask the Foreign Secretary about Jordan? It seemed a curious omission from his statement. Jordan has been a long-standing ally of the United Kingdom. I am aware that humanitarian support is being provided to Za’atari and other camps in Jordan. May I press him on what consideration the Government are giving to what other practical assistance and support can be provided to Jordan, beyond humanitarian support? The country is feeling the strain, given the extraordinary generosity it has shown during the crisis.
	On the middle east peace process, we welcome the recent efforts by US Secretary of State John Kerry to bring parties together and reinvigorate the stalled talks. On departing from Israel last week, after the last of his five visits to the region alone this year, Secretary Kerry spoke of important, though not irreversible, progress that has already been made. We welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement of support for this process, but can he set out what specific steps the British Government are taking to ensure that negotiations are urgently begun as part of Secretary Kerry’s efforts?
	These negotiations take place at a time of great upheaval and uncertainty in the wider region. We welcome the election of President Rohani, but there are key steps he must now be prepared to take if the ongoing nuclear crisis is to be resolved. I echo the sentiments expressed by the Foreign Secretary: a nuclear-armed Iran is not simply a threat to Israel, but a risk to all nations. The Government will have our support in pushing the E5 plus 1 talks that have regrettably so far not yielded sufficient progress.
	In conclusion, the Foreign Secretary’s statement comes at a time of almost unprecedented uncertainty across the middle east and north Africa. This transformative time of upheaval, revolution and conflict poses fundamental questions not just for the Foreign Secretary, but for policy makers across the region. That should therefore add to the urgency of efforts being made to try to resolve the ongoing and apparently intractable conflicts that have for too long defined the history of the region.

William Hague: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. On most if not all of these subjects, there is strong agreement across the Floor of the House.
	I absolutely agree with the way in which the right hon. Gentleman put the Opposition’s attitude on Egypt. What has happened may be a setback for democracy, but it need not be an irreversible trend. That is absolutely right. He is right to point out that some parties in Egypt have not agreed to the timetable of parliamentary and presidential elections set out by the new president in the constitutional declaration. In fact, worryingly, most of them have not agreed, including the National Salvation Front, which was one of the prime movers behind last week’s events. There were widespread objections to the details of the announcement. As he said, this cannot be resolved in any other way than an inclusive legitimate process inside Egypt. We therefore call on all parties to do that.
	It would be a terrible mistake for the authorities in Egypt to act in a way that drives the Muslim Brotherhood, or any other legitimate party, out of democratic politics. That mistake must be avoided at all costs. It would also be a mistake, however, for the Muslim Brotherhood to now refuse, under all circumstances, to take part in democratic politics in the months and years ahead. All nations who hold dear the stability and future of Egypt, as we do, have to encourage people, whether the Muslim Brotherhood or the new authorities, to resolve these differences and counsel against making those mistakes. Part of that is about releasing prisoners. I agree about that and I made that point to the acting Foreign Minister of Egypt. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, pursued the point with the Egyptian ambassador just this morning. Prisoners should be released unless criminal charges are to be laid. The holding of prisoners for political purposes after these events does not help the process.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Deauville partnership. I am happy to provide to him, or to the Library, more details. The $38 billion was not a fund, but the total financing from all global institutions available to the countries of the region if and when they pursue economic policies that give them access to it. One of the problems of the outgoing Government in Egypt was that they did not agree an IMF programme, and therefore did not win international financial support. The part of the Deauville partnership that involves funds that can be given away is much smaller. We have been determined, during our presidency of the G8, to make a tangible difference, and this year the Deauville partnership transition fund has started to deliver practical support. Projects of more than $100 million have been approved, and these principally support the development of small and medium-sized enterprises. This is the part that is a fund, but potential international financing is vastly greater, if the right economic reforms are undertaken.
	I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments on Iran. Again, I think there is strong agreement across the House and support for a further round of E3 plus 3 negotiations with its new Government. There is also strong agreement on the middle east peace process. I have set out in the House previously that we have to be ready, in the UK and in other European countries, once negotiations get going, to offer incentives or even disincentives at times during the negotiations for Israelis and Palestinians to try to make it a success, working with the United States. First, we have to get the negotiations going. We have been urging Israeli and Palestinian
	leaders to take the opportunity to work with John Kerry, stressing that there is no alternative. No one other than the United States has the necessary authority to bring Israel to the necessary agreements, to enter negotiations and make a success of them. Working with John Kerry is essential, and we await further announcements in the coming weeks.
	On Syria and a date for Geneva, there is no date at the moment. After the G8, a trilateral meeting was held between the US, Russia and the UN in Geneva on 25 June, which again did not produce a date. The fundamental problem is that while the regime is engaged in military offences, as it is now in Homs, it does not have an incentive to come to meaningful negotiations, and neither is the Opposition in a frame of mind to come to negotiations. Those military offences are making it harder for either party to come to Geneva.
	Jordan was not an omission from my statement—I referred to our humanitarian assistance. I have also referred in the past to the other assistance we are giving Jordan. We have sent military equipment to help the Jordanian armed forces operate on the border, collecting refugees and bringing them to refugee camps. We have £1.5 million going to Jordan through our Arab partnership fund to support civil society. We are in regular contact with Jordan. I spoke to the Jordanian Foreign Minister earlier this week, in particular to thank him for Jordan’s assistance with the recent mutual legal assistance treaty. I also made it clear to him that we are happy to give further assistance from the UK, if the Jordanians ask for it.

Peter Tapsell: On Egypt, may I acquaint my right hon. Friend with the news that when I arrived as a national serviceman in the charming town of Suez 64 years ago, its townspeople were busy rioting against the Wafd party. Sixty-four years from now, I have little doubt that the Egyptian people will still be rioting, so may I make the constructive suggestion to the Foreign Secretary that there is little he can do to help, except by not sending in British troops to restore order?

William Hague: I can assure my right hon. Friend that I have no plans to send in British troops to restore order. Only once since the second world war have we sent British troops into Egypt. I recall that he was once an election assistant to Anthony Eden.

Peter Tapsell: That bears out the wisdom of my advice.

William Hague: It does indeed bear out the wisdom of experience.
	We will not be sending in troops. We must stress that the vast majority of what we are calling for can only be brought about by Egyptians—we must not pretend anything else—but what we and other countries say does matter; how we are prepared to help in the future matters. We have to make those things clear to the Egyptians, even though it certainly does not involve the deployment of British troops.

Mr Speaker: It is clear that the Foreign Secretary is familiar with the right hon. Gentleman’s CV in 1955, as well as, I am sure, with his activities 64 years ago.

Jack Straw: Contrary to the distinguished, but dismal prognosis of the Father of the House, would the Secretary of State accept that across Africa remarkable progress has been made in recent decades to produce democracies? One thing that will set that back is if the west appears to be equivocal about the results of elections when it does not approve of those who are elected. This was a military coup, and we will gain nothing—indeed, we will undermine our influence—if we do not accept that. If we do not accept it, we will simply feed those extremists on the Islamic side who believe that we regard democracy as an optional extra only when those elected are people of whom we approve.

William Hague: I have a lot of sympathy with those points. Half of the 10 fastest-growing economies in the world are now in Africa. There is economic success, and many democracies are becoming established, which is to be welcomed and respected. That is why I was clear last Wednesday night that the United Kingdom does not support military interventions in democratic politics. We should always be prepared to state that clearly, I think, and to state what I just said in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary: that the Muslim Brotherhood must not be driven out of democratic politics in Egypt, or any other country. I think that across the House we can uphold those things very strongly.

Martin Horwood: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. The faltering peace process remains the best hope for the people of Syria. If, as he says, Iran is implicated in that conflict, is it not now essential to reach out to the new regime of Dr Rouhani and involve Iran in the Syrian peace process, including Geneva II? Doing otherwise is beginning to look unhelpfully dogmatic.

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of Iran, given the scale of its intervention in Syria. The extent to which it can be involved in a peace process will be heavily up to Iran, however; it has not, hitherto, expressed support for the outcome of last year’s Geneva conference and the creation of a transitional Government with full executive authority. Without agreeing with that, it is very hard to see how a success can be made of participation in negotiations over the coming months. Of course, however, those negotiations have to be conducted in circumstances that will produce the maximum success, and a judgment about how Iran can be involved must be guided by that objective.

Peter Hain: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment that any decision either to arm the opposition or to intervene militarily will be put to the House on a substantive motion, but does he intend that to happen not, as with Libya, after the decision has been activated, but before?

William Hague: That is clearly the intention of what I said, although I do not think it right to compare this situation with Libya or ever to give a 100% guarantee. After all, in Libya we acted very urgently to save lives; armoured columns were advancing on Benghazi. We could not have taken that action with France had we had to wait however many hours to call the House together. It is not possible to give 100% guarantees, but
	on a question such as the supply of arms to someone else in world, it is possible to anticipate that and therefore to debate it in advance.

Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although, as the former Foreign Secretary said, the prognosis in Egypt is gloomy, it was always going to take generations to fix the difficult social and political situation there? Does he also agree that, contrary to what the Father of the House said, this country has a major role to play in assisting many countries in the middle east with governance, improving opportunities and aspirations for their people and perhaps training young people so that they can get what everyone all over the world wants, which is jobs and some security?

William Hague: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have a big role to play, and the European Union, using its collective economic weight, potentially has a big role to play as well. As I said earlier, although we must never pretend that these matters can be sorted out by anybody other than Egyptians, we must not understate what we can do to assist. After all, British companies are the biggest investors in Egypt, and there are myriad family, business and personal connections between the people of Egypt and the people of the United Kingdom. We must not understate our influence, therefore; what we do can help, and what we say matters.

Helen Goodman: My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), the Foreign Secretary and President Obama all expressed regret at the military intervention in Egypt, but the special envoy for Quartet on the middle east suggested that it was inevitable, that they had no alternative. I realise that the Foreign Secretary has been very busy, but has he had an opportunity to discuss those remarks with the special envoy?

William Hague: The special envoy, the former Prime Minister from the hon. Lady’s party, does not have to clear with the Foreign Secretary of the day everything he says. I am not sure he would ever have cleared it with the Foreign Secretary of his own Government—perhaps the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) can tell us—and he certainly does not clear it with the Foreign Secretary of the next Government, who are opposing parties to his. That would be hoping for too much. I put things differently from him, as she noted—

Jack Straw: So did I.

William Hague: So did the right hon. Gentleman, and so did several others from time to time.
	We have to acknowledge that there was enormous dissatisfaction in Egypt with the record of the Government and therefore that what happened last week was very popular in Egypt. Nevertheless, we should be clear, as we discussed a few moments ago, that we cannot support military interventions in democratic processes.

Richard Ottaway: The lesson emerging from the middle east is that leaders who introduce reform are grudgingly winning the respect of their people, and no one is trying harder on this than the King of Jordan, who is busting a gut to stay ahead
	of the curve. Will the Foreign Secretary assure me that he is doing everything he can to help the King introduce the constitutional monarchy that he is proposing, and does he agree that, ironically and unexpectedly, monarchs are emerging as beacons of stability in the region?

William Hague: My hon. Friend makes a good point: it has turned out that monarchs enjoy greater legitimacy with their populations than many alternative Heads of State, which is always a thing to remember—it is perhaps the lesson of our history in the United Kingdom as well. We are seeing very sincere, very substantial reform programmes put forward by the King of Jordan, also overseen by the King of Morocco. We discuss these things regularly with His Majesty the King of Jordan; I discussed them with him when he was in the UK a couple of weeks ago. We are always ready to assist with the advice, expertise and assistance I have described. There is no cap on the amount of advice, expertise or assistance we can give, if requested.

Angus Robertson: Like many others, I am really worried that the message is going out to the moderate Muslim world that the west is standing by and watching the military overthrow of a democratically elected Government. The Foreign Secretary’s colleague in Turkey, Ahmet Davutoglu, has said:
	“It is unacceptable for a government, which has come to power through democratic elections, to be toppled through illicit means and even more, a military coup.”
	The Foreign Secretary knows that language matters in these circumstances. Will he join his Turkish colleague in recognising that this has been a military coup, and use that language?

William Hague: I have already done that in some of the interviews that I have given and made it clear. I have also discussed the issue in detail with my colleague, Ahmet Davutoglu, who is extremely concerned about it. I simply add the rider that we also have to understand that it was a popular intervention or coup—however we want to describe it. That does not mean that that is the right way to proceed, but it does mean that we have to think about and give good counsel on how the various parties work together in Egypt now. Whatever happens and whatever the opinion in the rest of the world, what has happened is not going to be reversed by military intervention, so however great our disapproval, we now have to encourage all concerned in Egypt into democratic processes—a constitution agreed by consensus, protecting human rights, making the economic progress that the country desperately needs.

Julian Lewis: May I warmly welcome the assurance that the Foreign Secretary has given that no lethal support will be supplied to the Syrian opposition without a prior vote in Parliament, as I do a similar assurance previously given by the Leader of the House, of which I was not aware until recently? However, may I remind the Foreign Secretary that, by coincidence, tomorrow we have a debate led by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on that very subject? May we therefore presume that if the House divides tomorrow, Ministers will be voting for the motion, rather than just sitting on their hands?

William Hague: My hon. Friend may find that most Ministers are elsewhere tomorrow, so I am unable to say what most of them will do, but the Government have made their position clear, and the House is able to make its position clear as well. The Government having already done so, we do not see the need to vote for—or, in this case, against—a motion of that kind.

Gerald Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the continual, covert and creeping redefinition of borders by the Israelis, whereby, for example, one family are allowed to live in their house because the house is defined as being in the west bank, but not to use the balcony because it is defined as being in Jerusalem, while another family are allowed to live in their house, but not to use the toilet because the toilet is defined as being not in the west bank but in Jerusalem? Does he agree that this continual, tyrannical oppression, which makes people’s daily lives an utter misery, is not conducive to any kind of peace negotiations that will result in freedom for the Palestinians and a secure Israel?

William Hague: It is the advance of settlements on occupied land that makes the return to negotiations in the middle east peace process so urgent. Those settlements are illegal, as well as creating many anomalies, including the kind that the right hon. Gentleman describes. On my recent visit to the west bank, I visited families whose homes had been demolished. I went to see the E1 area, which is of enormous importance in determining whether a viable, contiguous Palestinian state can be created. I think our views in this House on this issue are well expressed, and that is how we have also expressed them at the United Nations Security Council, which underlines the urgency of getting both parties into negotiations.

Bob Stewart: What hopes does my right hon. Friend have that the Syrian opposition, especially the al-Nusra Front, can achieve its aim of providing a “free, democratic and pluralistic” Syria that defends the rights of all Syrians after the demise of the Assad regime?

William Hague: We cannot look to the al-Nusra Front to provide a free, democratic or pluralistic Syria. There are extremist forces, but they are not the majority of people who are fighting for the opposition and certainly not of the people who simply want to see peace, dignity and prosperity for their country and a change of Government in Damascus. I think my hon. Friend should be able to trust the sincerity of the National Coalition, now with its expanded membership and new leadership, which includes many secular figures and minorities from across Syria. I have found in all my meetings with them that their commitment to a democratic, non-sectarian Syria is credible and sincere.

Richard Burden: As a secular, western politician, my instinctive sympathies were obviously with the people in Tahrir square, both in 2011 and recently. However, does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is all the more important that we reject the strictures of those who say that Islamic politics is one dimensional, that the Muslim Brotherhood are the same as jihadis and that there are not even divisions in the Muslim Brotherhood? I support him in saying that if
	we say to Islamists who have turned to democracy that there is no place for them on that road, we commit a very serious error.

William Hague: I agree with that absolutely, and it was well put by the hon. Gentleman. That will be important not only in Egypt, but in Libya, Tunisia and many other countries as well. It is important to have a sophisticated enough understanding to see that there are many, many different shades of opinion. We should be clear enough in our principles to welcome participation in democratic procedures and to uphold those over time, so I agree with him.

Bob Russell: Britain has always condemned ethnic cleansing, wherever it takes place around the world. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore condemn the Israeli Parliament for its vote to evict 40,000 Bedouin from their ancestral homelands?

William Hague: We do not agree with decisions about removals of Bedouin people. Indeed, on my recent visit to the occupied territories, I also visited a Bedouin encampment—to illustrate this point—and I met some of the Bedouin. Their original land was in the Negev desert; they have since moved into areas of the west bank. We want to see those people—this is one of the reasons we want to see the middle east peace process taken forward—have their own clear rights and their own places where they can live. [Interruption.] I am not going to add further language to what the Government have said at this delicate time in bringing the peace negotiations about, but I think my hon. Friend can see very clearly where we stand.

Andrew Gwynne: The Foreign Secretary was right to express his concerns about the involvement of Hezbollah in the Syrian conflict and elsewhere across the middle east. However, given that investigations in Bulgaria and Cyprus have uncovered evidence of Hezbollah activity in Europe, what conversations is he having with his EU counterparts about the proscription of Hezbollah in the European Union?

William Hague: I have been having a lot of conversations about that. There have been some differences of view around the EU, but I think we have made some progress on it. There will be further discussions this month—we are coming up to a meeting of EU Foreign Ministers in 12 days’ time. I cannot say that the issue will be resolved then, but there will be further discussions in or around that meeting. I will continue to advocate the designation of the military wing of Hezbollah. There has to be a clear consequence and a clear price exacted by European countries for terrorist acts on European soil.

Rehman Chishti: On Syria, the Secretary of State will be aware of paragraph 87 of the G8 communiqué, which made it quite clear that all the countries were committed to supporting a UN mission to Syria to see whether chemical weapons had been used. How far away are we from having that mission in Syria? Has Russia, having been party to that communiqué, made a representation to the Syrian authorities to allow that mission to go ahead? Finally, when there is a mission and a finding, does the Foreign
	Secretary understand whether Russia, having been party to the process, will accept the findings of that report and any further action to be proposed by the United Nations?

William Hague: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We continue to press for the United Nations mission to have access to all the necessary places in Syria, in order to make the evaluation about the alleged use of chemical weapons. As we have said, we have certainly seen substantial evidence of their use by the regime. The Assad regime has not given permission for access to the relevant places, so at the moment that mission is stalled. Yes, we have discussed that, and my hon. Friend is right to say that important language was used at the G8 on this matter. We have been discussing with Russia and others on the United Nations Security Council how to proceed on this, and we will continue to ask for Russia’s help to ensure that there can be access to the relevant places.

Philip Hollobone: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, in a region in turmoil, the biggest single threat to world peace is Iran’s potential development of a nuclear weapon? It is widely accepted that Iran has enriched uranium beyond the 3.5% necessary for civilian nuclear use. What knowledge does he have that Iran could be developing a plan B involving plutonium at its Arak nuclear facility, the heavy water section of which has been off limits to inspectors for the past 18 months?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is also right to raise this matter. Great concern has been expressed, including by
	the International Atomic Energy Authority, about the heavy water plant at Arak. That is one of the aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme to which the IAEA wants greater access. The President-elect, Mr Rouhani, has said that he is committed to transparency in Iran’s nuclear programme. One way to demonstrate that would be to be transparent about this issue; otherwise, the world will become increasingly alarmed in exactly the way that my hon. Friend has described.

Roger Williams: The sooner Egypt is able to restore stability and democracy, the sooner it will be able to exert a positive influence in the middle east. Does the Secretary of State therefore agree that, while we disapprove of the military intervention, now is not the time for the UK or any other nation to withdraw aid and support, as the Egyptians try to resolve their difficulties?

William Hague: That is right; we will not withdraw from the Arab Partnership work that we are doing with Egypt and other countries, for example. However, reforming the Egyptian economy, reinforcing the rule of law, tackling corruption and making it more attractive for international companies to invest in Egypt, as well as agreeing a programme with the IMF, would allow a great deal more assistance to flow to Egypt. Egypt has had financial support from Qatar, and has now apparently been offered financial support from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, but if it is to build a sustainable economy and get more assistance from the rest of the world, it needs to put its own economic house in order.

Points of Order

Fiona O'Donnell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will stay in the Chamber for this point of order. I think that you will agree that we had the most heated and emotional Prime Minister’s questions of the Session this afternoon. The emotion might carry us all along, but there are lines that you insist we must not cross. It has been reported by those who were present, by people watching at home and by the press that the Foreign Secretary, in response to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), twice shouted the words “stupid woman”. I know the Foreign Secretary to be a man who has done great good in his job, and I would hope that, if this report is true, he is already regretting those comments. Would it be appropriate, Mr Speaker, for you to give him an opportunity now to apologise, to ensure that his reputation and that of this place is not damaged by such behaviour?

Mr Speaker: I note the hon. Lady’s point of order. The Foreign Secretary is present, and he is entitled to respond if he wishes to do so, but he is not obliged to do so.

William Hague: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I mutter many things in this House; others shout them rather louder than I do. I mutter many things under my breath, but I never intend any offence to any other hon. Member.

Mr Speaker: I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I thank him for it. We will leave that there for today.

Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In spite of your valiant and heroic efforts to improve the conduct in the Chamber and the standing of Parliament outside this place, we hit a new low today. Prime Minister’s Question Time was an unedifying spectacle of distortion, evasion and obfuscation. May I again suggest that you hold a seminar, especially for the Prime Minister, in order to explain the precise meaning of the words “question” and “answer”, and the need for a link between the two?

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Today, it will suffice for me to say that I thought it was a very unedifying spectacle. It was as noisy as, if not more noisy than, I have ever known it. I ask right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, as I have done many times over the years, to give some thought to the way in which our proceedings are regarded by the people outside this House whose support we seek and whom we are here to represent. Frankly, the behaviour of a very large number of people was poor, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated. Rather than dwelling on it further today, let us aspire, and take steps at all levels, to ensure that it improves in subsequent weeks. That is a responsibility of every right hon. and hon. Member, from the person most recently arrived to the longest serving Member,
	and from those who serve in a Back-Bench capacity to those who serve at the highest level, either in government or in opposition.

Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have given the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland notice that I will be raising this point of order. Earlier today in Northern Ireland questions, I raised an issue about what she would be doing as a result of the outrageous and scandalous decision last night of the Parades Commission in Northern Ireland. That decision is causing enormous pain and tension to rise in north Belfast and across the Province, and there is the potential for severe trouble on our streets. In replying to my question, the Secretary of State did not address the point about her powers in relation to an application by the Chief Constable. I have to say, Mr Speaker, that in my view that was deliberately deceptive. It was absolutely outrageous, and it will not go down well with the people back home. The Secretary of State has a responsibility to do something about the outrageous decisions of the Parades Commission in Northern Ireland—

Mr Speaker: Order.

Nigel Dodds: And unless she acts, there will be difficulties ahead.

Mr Speaker: Order. I thank the right hon. Gentleman. It is only with great hesitation that I interrupt him, because he is a senior and respected Member of the House. However, while giving expression to his views, he must not use the words “deliberately deceptive”. He must not use those words. He is a man of great intelligence and vocabulary, and I must ask him to use an alternative formulation—or, at any rate, to withdraw those words.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State is here, and I will wait to see whether she wants to say anything, then make a judgment on the matter—

Mr Speaker: Order. No, no; I cannot have a conditional withdrawal from the right hon. Gentleman. It is open to the Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box if she so wishes, and I will afford her that opportunity, but those words must be considered in their own terms. I am not cavilling at anything else that the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I must ask him to withdraw those words. It is very clear that they are disorderly, and I must ask him to withdraw them and to use alternative words—or to use no alternative words but still to withdraw them.

Nigel Dodds: Mr Speaker, the situation in Northern Ireland today is extremely difficult and tense, and I have to say that people are very concerned about what might happen. For the Secretary of State to spend an entire Question Time without referring to her powers in this matter is unforgiveable, and it cannot be glossed over.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not seek to gloss over anything, and I am sure that the Secretary of State does not, but I must say to the hon. Gentleman with great courtesy that he has now twice failed to withdraw the words that were disorderly, which I have most courteously asked him to withdraw. I must warn the right hon.
	Gentleman—it pains me to do this—that if he persists in his refusal to comply with my order to withdraw, I shall be compelled to name him, which I do not wish to do. I please ask the right hon. Gentleman, who has made his point, to which the Secretary of State will have an opportunity to reply if she wishes, simply to take back those particular words. I am not asking him to withdraw his whole contribution; he must withdraw the words “deliberately deceptive”. It is not appropriate to accuse any Member of this House of seeking deliberately to deceive or mislead it. The right hon. Gentleman will please withdraw those words now.

Nigel Dodds: Mr Speaker, I have yet to hear any explanation from the Secretary of State as to why that glaring omission was made in relation to these important matters. I feel that on a matter of such import and importance, I am reluctantly not able to comply on this occasion. I stand over what I said, and I have to say that the people of Northern Ireland are in a very serious position indeed. The Secretary of State needs to do something to intervene in this matter, and she needs to do it quickly.

Mr Speaker: I made it clear, and I hope the House will accept that it was appropriate to do so, but I cannot engage in negotiation with colleagues whereby they agree to withdraw something if someone else does or does not do something. Therefore, very regretfully, after a display, I hope, of some patience and the proffering to the right hon. Gentleman of a number of opportunities to make good, I am forced to act.
	The Speaker ordered Mr Dodds, Member for Belfast North, to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of this day’s sitting (Standing Order No. 43), and the Member withdrew accordingly.

Mr Speaker: The Secretary of State was referred to several times in those comments, so I simply extend to the Secretary of State what I think is the courtesy of inviting her to comment if she wishes to do so, but she is under no obligation to do so.

Theresa Villiers: I am happy to do so. I fully appreciate the strength of feeling of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), given the involvement of his constituency in the events of the forthcoming weekend. He will appreciate from the conversation that he and I had this morning that any powers I have to intervene to review the decision of the Parades Commission are triggered only as a result of an application by the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland,
	and I have not received such an application. If I did so, I would of course consider the exercise of my powers with the greatest care.

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State.

Gregory Campbell: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is certainly a man of integrity, so I am happy to hear his point and judge whether it is legitimate to continue with it.

Gregory Campbell: Given what has happened and in light of the Secretary of State’s response, I wondered whether, within the context of the next 48 hours, she will ensure that the extreme frustration that has been exhibited today—I do not in any way challenge your ruling, Mr Speaker—is not played out on the streets of Belfast and Northern Ireland on Friday. We must maintain the rule of law and respect the integrity of all those involved in talks so that we can try to dissolve and devolve the position in Northern Ireland to a problem-solving exercise in which violence is avoided and people respect each other’s rights.

Mr Speaker: This is a very sensitive week leading up to 12 July, and I think that we are all conscious of, and respectful towards, that fact. The hon. Gentleman’s point is on the record, and I know that he will not take offence if I say that it is not a point of order for the Chair. He has registered his concerns and they have been noted.
	If the point of order appetite has now been satisfied, perhaps we can proceed with the presentation of a Bill.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Local Government (Miscellaneous provisions) Act 1982 (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Dan Rogerson, supported by Martin Caton, presented a Bill to amend the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to require those providing a service from a fixed pitch in a designated area to apply for a licence to trade; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 September, and to be printed (Bill 89).

Slavery

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Peter Bone: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to take steps to eradicate slavery; and for connected purposes.
	I must make it clear right from the beginning that I am not talking about being a Back-Bench Tory Member under the current whipping system. That is not what I mean by modern-day slavery, which is a much more serious offence.
	My Bill would include, subject to debate, scrutiny and change in this House, the following provisions. First, it would include the consolidation and simplification of existing legislation under one Act. At present, trafficking offences are contained in three separate pieces of legislation: the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. This makes the legislation contrasting rather than complementary. It also serves to maintain the widely held misunderstanding of modem slavery as primarily an immigration—not a criminal—problem. Bringing all modem slavery and human trafficking offences under one Act would address the current confusion and misunderstanding in the justice system. Moreover, the symbolic message of enacting these provisions under the title “Modem Slavery Act” would itself help to raise the profile of modem slavery and send a clear message, domestically and internationally, that the UK takes this issue very seriously.
	Secondly, I propose legislation for an “Anti-Slavery Rapporteur”. As an anti-EU Tory, of course, I could not possibly bring myself to call it that, so why do we not suggest “Commissioner” instead? Modelled on the Children’s Commissioner for England, the Anti-Slavery Commissioner would be statutorily obliged and empowered to represent the interests of victims of modem slavery, and in doing so, would fulfil the role of “critical friend” to the Government.
	At present, the Government maintain that the Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group on Human Trafficking is equivalent to a national rapporteur and therefore fulfils the UK’s obligations in this respect under article 19. However, the group fails in this regard. I would argue that it is not possible for a group of Government Ministers to carry out this role: Ministers have many other competing responsibilities and can devote only a limited amount of time to this issue. The group meets only every six months and is often subject to change at reshuffles. Who knows, by the end of next week, we may have a new set of Ministers to deal with.
	In addition, attendance at meetings is less than 50% and at the most recent meeting, apart from the Chairman, only two Ministers were present—a Minister for Wales and Minister for Scotland—with seven Ministers giving their apologies. An Anti-Slavery Commissioner could replace the Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group, be more effective and cost less money.
	Thirdly, the Bill would provide for duties on local authorities for the provision of support to adult and child victims. Imagine that a 25-year-old woman from a
	small village in Moldova has been offered an escape from poverty via a job in the UK working as a waitress, providing a chance to earn some money to send back to her family and provide family members as well as herself with a better quality of life. She arrives in London, but it becomes clear after a while that there never was a legitimate job opportunity. Her “contact” confiscates her passport and locks her in a room where she is beaten and repeatedly raped, and then sold into slavery as a prostitute. She is unable to escape her traffickers. After a few weeks, months, or even years, she is eventually found and rescued by the local police.
	The Government currently fund a specialist support programme run by the Salvation Army, which has a network of sub-contracted safe shelters. The system of care for adult trafficked victims is very good in the UK—so impressive that the Government have doubled their funding from £1.5 million last year to £3 million this year, despite the austerity. These safe houses offer adult victims the deserved chance to begin a recovery from the horrific mental, physical and emotional damage that they have experienced at the hands of traffickers. These victims have witnessed unimaginable horrors, yet are given an opportunity to be brought back to life.
	Now imagine a 15-year-old girl from a small village in Moldova who has been trafficked into the United Kingdom; these stories have the same beginning and middle, but their endings are very different. The girl is enslaved—beaten and raped on a daily basis. She lives in constant fear of her captors, yet is totally dependent on them, with no way to escape.
	The police discover the trafficking ring of which the girl is part. She is taken in by the local authority and put into social care as a “missing child”. However, she is given no special care and is not even identified as a victim of trafficking, and the home she is in is not secure. The traffickers know where she is and soon she disappears from care—trafficked back into her living hell, to be beaten and raped once more.
	I find it almost impossible to believe that we can stand by and allow such a scandalous situation to continue for one moment longer. We must enact a solution to this outrageous state of affairs in the quickest possible manner. We must address the disparity in care between adult and child victims. We must provide child victims safe and secure homes that will offer them the same level of care and support that adult victims receive. Furthermore, child victims need to be identified and recorded as such by local authorities—a move that would certainly incur no extra cost, but would make a huge difference to the plight of the victims.
	Although both cases I have described are obviously horrific, by the nature of things the magnitude of damage caused to a child victim of trafficking is likely to be significantly greater. It is shameful that we have established, and continue to permit, a system that allows such children to be re-trafficked with such ease. We must learn from the examples of other countries such as the Philippines, which provides safe houses run by local non-governmental organisations and charities, partly funded by the state and designed specifically for the recovery of child victims and their integration back into society.
	The fourth purpose of my Bill relates to the non-prosecution of victims. The Court of Appeal recently overturned the convictions of four victims of trafficking
	who had been prosecuted for crimes committed as a result of trafficking. Three were Vietnamese children forced to work in cannabis farms and one was a woman forced into sexual exploitation. Protection rights for victims are not set out in legislation; they are only in Crown Prosecution Service guidance. It is vital that that discrepancy be addressed. My Bill would bring in the presumption that victims of trafficking should not be prosecuted for crimes committed as a result of their being trafficked.
	The Bill will also include clauses about several other issues: the return of foreign-national trafficking victims to their country of origin and their safe integration back into society; a duty to trace and confiscate traffickers’ assets; a requirement for large businesses to report on measures that they are taking to eliminate modern slavery from their supply chains; and a requirement for front-line public servants to receive targeted training relating to human trafficking.
	There is a general public and political awareness of the horrific nature of modern-day slavery in the UK and across Europe, but it is not at the top of any Government’s political agenda. Although our Prime Minister has done a lot to improve the situation, having brought in a human trafficking strategy, set up an annual report, had a debate in Parliament, opened exhibitions and opened up Downing street, and although we are moving in the right direction, the British Government must be prepared to stand up to the individuals who perpetrate such evil crimes. They must take the lead on this most crucial of issues, as they did almost 200 years ago.
	In 1833, the consequences of the Slavery Abolition Act reverberated around the world.
	“You may choose to look the other way but you can never again say that you did not know.”
	Those were the words of William Wilberforce in May 1789. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr Peter Bone, Angie Bray, Mr Christopher Chope, Tracey Crouch, Mr Philip Hollobone, Jeremy Lefroy, Peter Luff, Fiona Mactaggart, Greg Mulholland, Stephen Phillips, Jim Shannon and Keith Vaz present the Bill.
	Mr Peter Bone accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 8 November and to be printed (Bill 90).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[Unallotted Day]
	 — 
	Disabled People

Mr Speaker: I advise the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Liam Byrne: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that the Government should publish, by October 2013, a cumulative impact assessment of the changes made by the Government that affect disabled people.
	Five of my right hon. Friends and I have tabled the words of today’s motion, but the words in our argument were inspired by others and are supported by tens of thousands of people up and down this country.
	This afternoon, I pay tribute to Pat Onions and her fellow campaigners, to the authors of the WOW petition and to the thousands of people up and down the country who have supported their campaign and will follow this debate closely. They want to send a message to the Government—the message that we have incorporated in our motion. Today we ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to support us and make sure that the message is heard, not just in the Department for Work and Pensions but in Her Majesty’s Treasury, as clearly as possible.
	The Opposition believe that how the Government have systematically ignored and tried to disguise and bury the impact of their reforms on disabled people is a national scandal. Reform that should have been approached with care and finesse has been approached with all the finesse of a bull in a china shop. When people have cried about the combined pain of the changes, the Government’s response has been that of the three wise monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Frankly, we demand better of Her Majesty’s Government.

Gordon Marsden: My right hon. Friend is making his position clear with great power and pugnaciousness. Is it not already clear that the chaos around the work capability assessment and the implementation of the personal independence payment is widespread? In the House last year, I cited dozens of cases of disabled people from my constituency who had awful experiences of revolving assessments. Is it not appalling that so many people are going through that process when almost a third of people are winning their appeals at tribunals?

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall come back to his point slightly later.
	The Opposition believe in reform of the benefits system and of support and care for disabled people, but we also believe in one thing more—that fewer, not more, disabled people should live in poverty in this country. During our time in office, we drove down the number of disabled people living in poverty from 40% to about a quarter. That was not an accident; it was because of the most ambitious series of reforms to help disabled people that we have ever seen.
	There was the appointment of the first ever Minister for Disabled People, the Disability Discrimination Act and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. There were great programmes such as Supporting People, the new deal for disabled people, new strategies for disabled children and Valuing People, and, crucially, there was the Equality Act 2010. Poverty in disabled households fell under Labour and now that progress has gone into reverse.

Robert Flello: There is a fundamental difference in how the reforms have been heralded in the media, too. When we were in government and we put those reforms through, we did so in a careful and considered way, whereas because of how the current reforms are being pushed through, the media are characterising people in certain ways. A constituent who is on disability benefit for severe mental health problems came to my office the other day with his head in his hands saying, “I know I’m scum. That’s what I read every day. That’s the way I feel I’m treated.”

Liam Byrne: The whole House will have heard my hon. Friend’s powerful story. I am afraid that too often in the past three years we have had not the politics of national unity, but the politics of dividing lines—dividing lines after dividing lines. When has this country ever achieved great things when we have sought to divide one from another? We have only ever achieved great things in this country when we have pulled together, but I am afraid that that is not the policy of reform we see from this Government.
	Today we have one third of disabled citizens in our country living in poverty. That proportion has increased every single year this coalition Government have been in power. That is a disgrace, and it is only surpassed by the Government’s attempts to make it worse.
	Today I want to set out the great pressures that now confront disabled people and ask, in the words of our motion, that the Government, for the first time, put together
	“a cumulative impact assessment of the changes”,
	because the Secretary of State has an important duty to fulfil later this year. He has a duty before the autumn statement to set before the Chancellor of the Exchequer the combined concerted impact of the changes he is prosecuting on disabled people. These changes are big and they are well known. They affect the roof over people’s heads, the cash they receive, the care they enjoy, the help for their children and the help for their carers, and, of course, the systems that are currently failing to give disabled people the chance to lift themselves out of poverty by actually going to work.
	Let me start with an issue that I know will be much in the news today: the hated bedroom tax. Two thirds of people hit by this tax are disabled. We know that council housing in this country is allocated according to need, and very often disabled people are given accommodation that is suited to their need. They may have a room that is available for a carer or for equipment, but the accommodation they were given was allocated according to need. Now disabled people face a tax on that spare room. Disabled people now face the distress of debt, being torn from their neighbours, and cut off
	from help very often if they are on disability living allowance. This is a cruel and unusual punishment meted out to the most vulnerable in our society, and this Government should drop it, and drop it now.

Kate Green: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government knew when they first introduced this tax that it would have this disproportionate and devastating effect on disabled people? Originally they had hoped to exempt them from the tax, but when they worked out how many would be affected, they simply buried their principles in the interests of expediency.

Liam Byrne: That evidence is now becoming well known, and we have had more evidence circulated by great organisations, such as Carers UK today, about the impact this tax is now having on some of the most vulnerable people in our community, including hundreds in the Minister’s constituency.

Mark Hoban: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Liam Byrne: In a moment. Perhaps when the Minister intervenes he can justify what Carers UK found:
	“Three quarters (75%) of carers having to pay the ‘bedroom tax’ are being forced to cut back on essential spending on food, electricity and heating.”
	Will the Minister justify that to the House?

Mark Hoban: The Leader of the Opposition has accepted the changes we have made through the spare room subsidy. Is the right hon. Gentleman going against that? Is he going to reverse this policy?

Liam Byrne: It ill behoves the Minister to play word games this afternoon on a policy that is affecting hundreds of people and their carers in his own constituency. What is he saying to carers in his constituency who are having to cut back on food, electricity and heating?

Iain Duncan Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Liam Byrne: In a moment. What is the Minister going to say to councils up and down the country surveyed by Channel 4 for tonight’s broadcast showing that one third of councils are having to deny help to disabled people because the provision of the discretionary housing payment fund is, frankly, insufficient? What is he going to say to those councils and what is he going to say to those disabled people in his own constituency?

Mark Hoban: I am going to be very straight with my constituents about the challenges we face. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now answer the question I asked him?

Liam Byrne: We believe this policy should be dropped and it should be dropped now. Why? Because this is an iniquitous, unjust policy that is going to cost more than it saves.

Iain Duncan Smith: rose—

Liam Byrne: I will give way to the Secretary of State in a moment, but first I want him to respond to this scenario. His own figures show that 660,000 people will be hit by this hated tax. He said when he came to the House that this would save £490 million. Let us assume that 50% of the people who move go into the private rented sector. That is going to cost his Department an extra £25 a week each. Let us assume the rest get another form of social housing. Every single move costs a registered social landlord £850. Then there is the cost of arrears, which RSLs say will double. Then there is £160 million-worth of discretionary housing payment on top. The truth is that if 40% of people move, this could well cost our country £580 million, which is £100 million more than the Secretary of State promised to save. What is his analysis of that? Does he now admit this will cost more than it saves?

Iain Duncan Smith: The right hon. Gentleman’s leader said categorically, in terms, that Labour would not reverse the spare room subsidy. [Interruption.] Yes, he has, in an interview. Now, however, the Leader of the Opposition’s spokesman is standing at the Dispatch Box saying Labour will reverse this. That is a commitment to spend £1 billion over two years, rolling out further down the road. That is a spending commitment.

Liam Byrne: The Secretary of State has just refused to deny that this iniquitous policy is going to cost £100 million more than it saves. If he wants to refute that, why is he refusing to give our noble Friends in the other place the detailed model his Department used in order to assess this and come to the conclusion it was going to save £490 million? If he wants to have an argument about whether this does indeed cost more than it saves, he should provide that detailed analysis and those figures.

Stephen Doughty: My right hon. Friend is making a crucial point about the cost of the bedroom tax, and I can help provide him with some figures from Cardiff council. Since 1 April there are now 1,176 people in arrears and the council estimates that 900 of them have never been in arrears before. That is going to cost it £175,000 in additional costs, and its arrears bill has risen to £1.2 million, so the idea that this is going to save money is a complete fantasy.

Liam Byrne: What is interesting about the Secretary of State’s response is that he cannot defend his Department’s failure, and he cannot defend his own failure of leadership in not giving us a cumulative impact assessment of these cuts because he fears what that will show. He fears it will show that this bedroom tax will cost more than it saves—and it is just one of a number of changes now coming together to hit disabled people, and hit them hard.

Barbara Keeley: Does my right hon. Friend agree on these two points? First, this dreadful tax is going to cost more than it saves. It is hitting 2,600 households in my constituency, and City West Housing is expecting arrears of at least £1 million this year. Even worse than that is the effect on choice and dignity: week in and week out, I am now seeing cases in which disabled people have to explain why they cannot sleep in the same bedroom as their carers. They are being assessed on the point of “Why
	can you not sleep in the same bedroom?” Last week I had a letter about some constituents which stated, “We see no reason why you cannot sleep in the same bedroom.” Case studies that Carers UK has provided to Members today, however, explain why for people with disabilities there is very often a really good reason why the carer cannot sleep in the same room or the same bed as the person they are caring for.

Liam Byrne: Absolutely, and that is why the Secretary of State must produce the impact assessment. All of us are now meeting people who are under such pressure that they are creating more cost elsewhere in the system. I will probably remember for ever the man I met recently in Redcar. The great Anna Turley introduced us, and this is what was said: “Yes, he has a spare room, and do you know what he puts in it? He puts equipment to help him with renal failure.” Now, because he is having to move, that opportunity for home care is disappearing, and the NHS is saying to him “We’re going to have to take you to and from hospital in an ambulance every single day.” That is not a cost saving for the NHS. That is a new cost. It is a straight cost jump from a failure of policy from this Government.

Pete Wishart: I just wish to get this clear, so that there is no uncertainty: it is now the policy of a future Labour Government to reverse the bedroom tax. I, like the Secretary of State, was under the impression that the Leader of the Opposition had said that that was not the case. So will the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) provide clarification? Will the Labour party, if elected, abolish the bedroom tax?

Liam Byrne: We believe that the bedroom tax should be dropped, and dropped today, because the evidence is mounting that it is going to cost more than it saves. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. These points must be allowed to come out in debate, and right hon. and hon. Members can speak on their feet but not from their seats.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker.
	We have to deal with the issue of the bedroom tax and then the issue of the cash benefits—

Iain Duncan Smith: Will right hon. Gentleman give way?

Liam Byrne: I am not going to give way to the Secretary of State—

Iain Duncan Smith: He has now just said—

Mr Speaker: Order. We must proceed, on both sides, according to established rules of debate, which include taking interventions or choosing not to do so. A Member cannot intervene, however strongly he or she feels, if the person who has the Floor declines to give way.

Liam Byrne: If the Secretary of State is so passionate about speaking, he should be answering for the Minister this afternoon instead of intervening from a sedentary position.

Iain Duncan Smith: rose—

Liam Byrne: I will give way to the Secretary of State in a moment, because I have a number of other points I want him to answer. The whole House would wish that he, and not the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), was answering the debate, because it is his failure of leadership at the Department for Work and Pensions that means that disabled people in this country are in such trouble today.
	Let me deal with the cash commitments that we need to move on to. The Secretary of State needs to listen to this, because he cannot pursue this agenda of denial right the way through this afternoon; the power of hon. Members’ contributions demands to be listened to. Let us just consider contributory employment and support allowance, a benefit that people have paid into for years. The Conservative party and, in particular, the Secretary of State, have never believed in the principle of contributory benefits. By the end of this Parliament, such benefits will be no more than a rounding error; 280,000 former workers will by 2014 have completely lost their entitlement to support worth £100 a week—thank heavens we won an exemption for cancer patients. The truth is that those with mental health conditions and stroke sufferers will be very hard hit by this change.
	Let us then consider the idea that disability living allowance should be abolished and replaced by the personal independence payment. We believe that reform is important, and we welcome the Secretary of State’s more sensible roll-out plan, but surely it is wrong to take away someone’s DLA without even a passing glance at whether the removal of that benefit will push someone out of work, push them into the NHS or cause a carer to have to give up a job. We are talking about important safeguards that should have been written into the reform of DLA. And we now have the lunacy of a Government forced to consult on issues such as the 20-metre rule after—not before—they introduce the regulations, because they could not organise things properly. It is an utter shambles.
	We welcome the idea of strong social care. I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for the work that she has done and the way in which she has influenced the definition of well-being in the Care Bill, which is passing through the other place. DWP Ministers must know that one third of social care users are disabled adults, and we must avoid changes that take that system backwards rather than forwards.
	There will be other changes that affect carers and children. Carers UK tells us that: 3 million carers have had to give up work; one in five carers have seen their work badly affected by caring; and four out of 10 fall into debt. Yet, according to the Government’s own figures, botched reform to DLA could see another 10,000 carers lose support. Parents of disabled children will suffer, too. Parents of 100,000 disabled children will suffer from plans for universal credit. I understand from the Secretary of State’s performance before the Select Committee this morning that universal credit is now, after half a billion pounds-worth of spending, going to appear in the grand total of 10 jobcentres from October, which is about 1% of jobcentres. That is a tremendous success for the Secretary of State, topped only by his success in giving us a Work programme that is worse than doing nothing.
	Families with disabled children currently receive an extra £54 per week from child tax credit, but that will be reduced by half when universal credit is introduced, which means a loss of about £1,400 a year for a family with a disabled child—or £22,000 over the course of a lifetime. The Prime Minister has told the House that
	“we are not cutting benefits for disabled children.”—[Official Report, 14 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 793.]
	I think Channel 4 FactCheck got it right when it said that
	“the dial points pretty firmly to fiction on this one”.
	The tragedy is that so many disabled people want to work, want to get themselves out of poverty, and the Government will not help. A single person on disability benefits will be under the poverty line by about £600 a year. Even three hours’ work a week lifts a disabled person above the poverty line, and 30 hours’ work a week lifts them above the poverty line by about £5,000 a year. At the moment the situation is so chaotic that someone going along to a work capability assessment is eight times more likely to end up in a tribunal than in a job. As for the Work programme, words simply fail me. It took some doing, but the Government did it: they have produced a Work programme that is three times worse than doing nothing—and that is on their own figures.
	Last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer found the money to hand out a very nice tax cut—a very large tax cut—to some of Britain’s richest citizens. So this year we want to know: what is the Secretary of State going to ask the Chancellor for on behalf of disabled people? We think we should help him get the pitch right. The only way he can get that down accurately is by bringing forward a cumulative impact assessment of the changes now hitting disabled people. How else will he know what to ask for? How many people are losing their homes? How many are losing their DLA? How many are losing their homes, their DLA and their ESA? How many will lose carer’s allowance on top? And how many more disabled people will fall into poverty as a result of these sweeping changes over the next couple of years? Surely the Secretary of State cannot justify proceeding with these reforms blind. Surely he cannot go into negotiations with the Chancellor later in the year, before the autumn statement, oblivious to what is actually going on.

Gloria De Piero: My right hon. Friend may be aware of the work that Mind has done and the fact that about 40% of people applying for ESA are doing so because of a mental health problem. Work capability assessments are just not working, as we have all seen in our constituencies, and they need reforming.

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course the employment rate among people with a mental health condition is the lowest of all; it is a disgrace and it needs to change. At the moment, however, we do not have a system that actually assesses people’s needs at the same time as we assess what benefits they should be entitled to. There is a complete disconnection at the heart of the system. The point we want to make to the Secretary of State gently this afternoon is that he presides over one of the great Departments of state; about 100,000 civil servants work for him. If this country can organise an Olympic games, help put rockets into space
	and organise complex armed conflict abroad, he ought to be able to work out a cumulative impact assessment of the changes affecting disabled people.
	The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Fareham, who has been forced to answer this debate, has, curiously enough, told the House the following:
	“The Government regularly produces analysis of the cumulative impact of all coalition changes…The publication of cumulative impacts is a coalition initiative”.—[Official Report, 5 July 2013; Vol. 565, c. 862W.]
	Labour Members welcome that. So can we please have a cumulative impact assessment of the changes hitting disabled people?

Jim Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, historically, the Government party has always been against the welfare state? Successive Conservative Governments have tried to weaken the welfare state by making statements that are not really helpful to those who need it.

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, and, worst of all, what he describes comes with a nasty and divisive politics to boot.
	If the Secretary of State needs any help with this job of producing cumulative impact assessments, plenty is on hand, as luck would have it. Let me read out the list of people who have half done the job for him: Demos, in its “Destination Unknown” pamphlet; Inclusion Scotland; the Campaign For a Fair Society; the Children’s Commissioner; Contact A Family; and The Hardest Hit. All those organisations have been able to produce cumulative impact assessments, and I am sure that if he of State asked them nicely, they would lend him a hand.
	We believe that there must be vital reform in social security in the future, but that there must be a different way of organising reform. Someone in our country registers with the DWP as disabled every three minutes. The morality of this debate is very simple: disability is an issue that could affect any of us and is therefore something that affects us all. We should be learning from reform such as that pioneered by the Australian Labor party through comprehensive disability insurance, where one personal plan sets out a plan of action for benefits, back-to-work support, social care and help from the national health service and where one partnership comes together to deliver it.
	I do not know how often the Secretary of State speaks to his opposite number in the Department of Health, but his right hon. Friend is taking through the other place a Care Bill that creates a definition of well-being that includes the idea that someone should be able to go to work and to get training and an education. The DWP is then missing from the rest of the Bill. The local authority and the NHS are obliged to talk to each other, but where is the DWP? Why is it not coming together with local councils and the NHS to deliver change? We should create a “tell us once” approach to collecting information and, crucially, we should transform back-to-work support by giving people the right to take that support in the form of a personal budget. I know the Secretary of State is still evaluating the “right to control” pilots in Barnsley and elsewhere and we look forward to his bringing forward the conclusions from that work.

Paul Maynard: I am pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman announce his intention to abolish the spare room subsidy. He also praised to the skies the Australian insurance model that has just been introduced. Is he therefore committing to the payroll tax increases funding that model in Australia? Have we just heard yet another spending commitment?

Liam Byrne: Of course not. We are saying that the idea of introducing holistic care, in the way the hon. Gentleman’s Department of Health colleague implies in the Care Bill, is something the Secretary of State could learn from.

Stephen Doughty: When Lord Freud gave evidence to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and was questioned about the mental health impacts on people going through the reforms and the impact they were having on individual lives, he appeared to suggest that few conversations had been had with organisations such as the Samaritans and Mind. That is deeply concerning; does my right hon. Friend agree? A constituent came to me the other week and handed me a letter that said at the end, “I’d rather kill myself and then they will have one less mouth to feed.” That is the daily experience of the people who come to our surgeries.

Liam Byrne: That is the tragedy about which we are all hearing in our constituencies. I am sure that the Minister has heard the same thing from his constituents, because we know that some 890 people could lose their disability living allowance in his constituency. If people are in work and lose their DLA, they will lose some of their advantages in the tax credit system. If they are also hit by the uprating legislation and the bedroom tax and also lose their transitional support under universal credit, it will not be long before they are £5,000 a year worse off. How can we in this country, one of the richest nations on earth, justify giving a huge tax cut to millionaires and then saying to 890 people in the Minister’s constituency that if they want to go to work they might be £5,000 a year worse off? How on earth can the Minister justify that to the House?
	The Government are putting some our most vulnerable people in the middle of a labyrinth and, frankly, if we are to succeed as a nation in the future we cannot go on like this. We must draw on every ounce of talent that is available to us in these islands. That is the only way we will become a nation that is firing on all cylinders. Today, we offer the Secretary of State no more than a humble step on the road—something that will help him in his negotiations with the Chancellor before the autumn statement. I hope that it is something he will be able to support. No one will be able to understand why he has set his face against it if he votes against it and leads his troops to vote against it this afternoon. I hope he accepts it and, if he does not, I hope this House will force him to.

Mark Hoban: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
	“welcomes the Government’s leadership in furthering the rights of disabled people; recognises the UK as a world leader in disability rights; notes that approximately £50 billion a year is spent on services for disabled people, including adult social services and including an investment of £3.8 billion in health and
	social care services in England to deliver more joined-up services to disabled people; further notes the £350 million allocated by the Government for programmes and support for disabled people to move into and stay in work; and acknowledges the Government’s collective determination to build upon the London 2012 Paralympic Games, and create a legacy which shines a light on the abilities and achievements of disabled people.”.
	I thank the Opposition for choosing this subject to discuss today, not least because it gives me an opportunity to remind the House of this Government’s actions to support disabled people and improve people’s lives. We are absolutely committed to supporting disabled people and enabling those who face the greatest barriers to play a full role in society.
	The UK is a world leader in rights for disabled people and spends more on disability than Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Japan. We are proud of that history and the Government are spending about £50 billion a year on disabled people and the services that support them, but spending money is not enough. We need to spend that money wisely, and I will set out the reforms we are undertaking to ensure that that happens.
	Some of the biggest barriers for disabled people are caused not by money but by prejudice and we have done far more to tackle the prejudices that continue, moving forward society’s understanding and knowledge of disability and disabled people. Our ambition is to enable disabled people to achieve their aspirations and play a full role in society. Our approach has been developed with disabled people and the organisations that represent them because it is important to help with what happens in their lives. The strategy we have developed is set out in the document “Fulfilling Potential—Making it Happen”. It sets out nearly 200 actions across Government to ensure that disabled people can realise their aspirations.
	I am pleased to say that under this Government disabled people are seeing improved outcomes and reduced inequalities compared with non-disabled people since 2009-10. Figures published last week show improvements for disabled people in educational achievements, the employment rate and the proportion in relative poverty. They also show how inequalities compared with non-disabled people have reduced for GCSE results, for the employment rate, for income poverty for families in which someone is disabled, and in choice and control.

Yasmin Qureshi: I note that the hon. Gentleman expresses sympathy and states that the Government have done a lot for disabled people. We have received a great deal of information from various charities saying that the cumulative impact of all the cuts will affect disabled people more than able-bodied people. The purpose of today’s motion is to ask the Government to carry out an independent evaluation of the fact that the changes will affect disabled people more. What is wrong with the Government carrying out that assessment?

Mark Hoban: As I shall discuss later, the previous Government did not do it—

Yasmin Qureshi: rose—

Mark Hoban: The hon. Lady’s intervention was long enough, so I ask her to let me finish making my point. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill
	(Mr Byrne) called on the Treasury to implement this measure; he, of course, was a Treasury Minister in the dying days of the previous Government. Did they do anything about this? No, they did not. It is a bit rich for Labour, having been in government for 13 years, to come forward at this point to call for a cumulative impact assessment. They never did it when they were in government, and they know that they could not do it now either.
	Over the past three years, we have maintained financial support for disabled people despite the fiscal pressures, we have refined benefits to support disabled people and help them into work, we are reforming the care system so it better meets the needs of disabled people and the elderly, and we are using the magnificent success of the Paralympics to transform lives.
	Our record on spending on disabled people compares well internationally. We continue to spend almost double the OECD average as a percentage of GDP—2.4% compared with about 1.3%. Of the 34 OECD countries, only Norway and Iceland spend more. In the last spending review, published last month, we demonstrated that even in hard economic times when so many budgets have been subject to significant cuts, the Government continue to make the needs of disabled people a priority and to protect funding for disabled people.
	As we know that delivering better, joined-up services for the disabled and the elderly shortens hospital stays or, even better, keeps people out of hospital and in their own homes, we are creating a £3.8 billion single budget for health and social care services in England so that people can work together more closely in local areas, based on a plan agreed between the NHS and local authorities. That shared pot includes an additional £2 billion from the NHS and builds on the existing contribution of about £1 billion in 2014-15. To enable the programme to start, we are investing an extra £200 million in 2014-15 to get this work under way. I believe that that working together will benefit both the disabled and the elderly.

Barbara Keeley: Does the Minister not see that the problem is that £2.8 billion has already gone out of social care? The hundreds of millions of pounds of funding that has been moved across is being used as a sticking plaster to prop up existing care packages, and nine out of 10 local authorities are now only meeting substantial care needs. The situation with social care is deteriorating by the week and it is causing issues in the NHS, such as the recent A and E crisis.

Mark Hoban: But reform is needed, too, to make sure that we spend money carefully. We need to think about how we deliver services. That is why joining up care and health in a single budget is vital if we are to tackle problems on the ground, enable local authorities and the health service to work together, and really make progress.

Liam Byrne: The Minister is being characteristically generous in giving way. If he believes what he has just said, will he explain why the duty to co-operate in the Care Bill does not extend to the Department for Work and Pensions? Will he table Government amendments to the Bill to ensure that those duties to co-operate bite on local authorities, the NHS and his Department?

Mark Hoban: We already co-operate in those areas. We work closely with local authorities and the Department of Health. We do not need a duty of care to enable us to take that approach; we can do that very well at the moment.
	We all know that the cost of care is a huge concern for the elderly and for disabled people, and that is why the spending round provides £335 million to local authorities in 2015-16 to prepare for the delivery of the capped costs system from April 2016 and a universal offer of deferred payment agreements from April 2015. That investment begins a programme of reforms to social care funding in England which will mean that no one faces unlimited care costs or is forced to sell their home in their lifetime to pay for residential care.
	We want disabled children to have the best possible start in life. The pupil premium is increasing in real terms. That will disproportionately benefit disabled children and young people, and the Government will continue to reform services for those with special educational needs.
	It is hard for people to feel included in society if they are excluded from getting around. Railway funding makes provision for the industry to invest up to £100 million from 2014 to 2019 in measures to provide easier access for older and disabled passengers and those with small children. That list of the priorities announced in the spending review demonstrates that any cumulative impact assessment is about not just one area of Government policy, because there is a whole range of ways in which we are taking measures to help disabled people to improve their lives.

Jim Cunningham: Coming back to the £3 billion extra that the Minister mentioned, how will that be distributed, bearing in mind that Coventry city council has to make £28 million in cuts over the next four years? How will he distribute the money to deliver care?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that funding formulas are in place to ensure that the money is allocated. There is an obligation on local authorities not only to make a contribution towards tackling the deficit that we inherited from the previous Government, but to look innovatively at how they deliver services and ensure that we get value for money.

Kate Green: I point out that the previous Government did not conduct a cumulative impact assessment because we were not making so many sweeping changes all at once. However, I want to ask the Minister about his comments on disabled children. Does he accept that the welcome exemption that the Government introduced to allow adults with disabilities an extra room under the bedroom tax for an overnight carer does not apply to children? If he accepts that it does not, will he explain why it does not?

Mark Hoban: The previous Government were asked to supply cumulative impact assessments. [Interruption.] Well, that was the point that the hon. Lady wanted to make. However, that Government recognised that those assessments were too complex and difficult to carry out. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill is smiling; he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and he has to recognise that the previous Government failed to do that.

Liam Byrne: I think that the Minister would sort of accept that we were not introducing some of the biggest cuts to disabled people’s services or benefits for a generation, so the premium on a cumulative impact assessment was not quite as great then as it is now. He said to the House on 5 July that cumulative impact assessments were “a coalition initiative”, and I assume that they are an initiative of which he is proud. If he is so proud of them, why does he not equip himself with one before the Secretary of State goes to see the Chancellor, as he no doubt will, so that he can argue on behalf of disabled people before the autumn statement?

Mark Hoban: I do not want to spoil the excitement that is felt about the later parts of my speech—you are right to pull a wry face, Mr Speaker—but the challenge when one is trying to carry out a cumulative impact assessment that covers a wide range of policy areas for a defined group, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, as he was in the Treasury and in government, is that resources and information are not there to enable people to do it. That is the problem that the last Government faced, and we face the same challenge. Unlike that Government, we have produced a cumulative impact assessment at major fiscal events, but that cannot be disaggregated to the sort of level that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. He knows that, because he has been through that process.

Liam Byrne: The Minister is very generous to give way once again. Will he tell the House which part of the Demos “Destination Unknown” cumulative impact assessment he disagreed with?

Mark Hoban: Bodies such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies have said that giving that level of detail is impossible and have stepped away from doing so. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has got into trouble on spending plans; he tried to dig himself out of a hole earlier and did not manage to do it, and there is a bit of chaff for him, but let us be very clear: this was a challenge when he was in government, and it remains a challenge.
	Let me move on to employment. We all know that work brings self-esteem and dignity. It enables people, whether disabled or able-bodied, to look after themselves and their families. Nearly half of disabled people are in work. Only one in 10 working-age disabled people have never worked, and for those aged over 25 it is only one in 20. If we want to make a sustainable difference, we must do all that we can to help more disabled people who can work to get into mainstream employment and stay there. The spending review allocated £330 million to programmes and support for disabled people or those with a long-term health condition, so that they can move into and stay in work.

Robert Flello: I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being generous in taking interventions. Over the summer, will he get his Department to publish, as an example, the number of people who used to work in the Remploy factory in Stoke-on-Trent who have gone into work in the wider environment, and the number who are now unemployed and likely to be unemployed for the rest of their working life? That facility, to use the Minister’s exact words, provided work experience—not some segregated nonsense, but work experience that
	people enjoyed. I spoke to the people there time and again, and they really enjoyed working there. Will he publish those figures over the summer?

Mark Hoban: I shall give the hon. Gentleman some homework for the summer recess. If he goes back to Thursday’s Hansard and the statement that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), made about stage 2 for Remploy factories, he will see that it sets out in detail the work that we have done to get people back into employment, and it gives the aggregate figures. The success in getting people into work after the closure of Remploy factories has outpaced what normally happens with redundancies. What we have seen demonstrates the important support given to get people into work.
	This Government remain convinced of the need to maximise the opportunities available to disabled people to enable them to realise their employment aspirations. The principal objectives of our disability employment strategy are to increase the employment rate for disabled people, and to maximise the opportunity for disabled people to realise their employment aspirations and thus achieve greater economic independence. We will publish our strategy later this year. We need to make sure that money is targeted more effectively, to ensure that support continues to be available to those who need it most, that there is a lasting impact and that interventions provide a fair deal for the taxpayer.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend talks about priorities. Will he assure the House that the Government’s priority is to give help to disabled people who are British citizens over those who are not British citizens?

Mark Hoban: What we need to do is make sure that we get more people into work, regardless of their disability, and we must help them into employment. We are particularly supporting those who were Remploy employees to get into work, as well as broader groups. That is our focus; that is exactly what the Government are trying to do. That is why we accepted the recommendation from disability expert Liz Sayce that we should focus support on individuals through services such as Access to Work, rather than through institutions such as Remploy, so that more disabled people can work in mainstream employment.
	Next week we will see the first ever disability employment conference, a flagship event funded by Government and business. This will involve more than 600 people in London and five regional locations via video link, with many more watching online. The conference is a unique opportunity for businesses and Government to come together to identify the challenges that others are facing and provide innovative solutions to tap into this underemployed pool of talent and reap the benefits that this can bring. But next week’s conference is just the beginning. Over the next two years we will continue to work with business to bring about a new disability-confident perspective on employment and improve the employment outcomes for disabled people.
	I have no doubt that people want to work, but some are held back by a complex and unwieldy benefit system with weak or even non-existent incentives to work. Our plans for welfare reform will transform the benefits landscape. We have designed a new system with work as its focus—a coherent approach which ensures that people will be better off in work than on benefits. I firmly believe that the vast majority of people want to work and gain greater independence, but we also know that many disabled people who want to work fear the risk of losing their benefits and feel that that is too great a risk of getting into work. By simplifying the benefits system and making sure that work pays, universal credit will remove the financial risks of taking the first steps back into employment, and increase the incentives for working, even for a few hours a week.
	Let me deal with some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made. Universal credit will provide unconditional support to those disabled people who are not expected to do any work. There will be no cash losers in the roll-out of universal credit. People will see their level of benefit protected when they switch over if their circumstances remain the same. Indeed, the average change in income for disabled people under universal credit is an increase of £8 a month.
	Universal credit will provide support for carers and improve their opportunities to maintain links with the world of work. Many families will benefit from help with child care costs, especially people who work under 16 hours a week, who will get help for the first time. Households with one or more disabled adults will be able to keep up to £647 a month of their earnings before seeing a reduction in their universal credit. It will also offer a more flexible system for people whose ability to work fluctuates. Universal credit will encourage more disabled people to see work as financially viable, increasing their dignity and self-esteem.

Fiona O'Donnell: What about new claimants? How does the Minister respond to evidence provided by Citizens Advice, which shows that 230,000 severely disabled people who live alone with a young carer could be worse off, 100,000 disabled children could lose up to £28 a week, and up to 116,000 disabled people who work would be at risk of losing around £40 a week?

Mark Hoban: As I said, the cash benefits for people on transition are protected. We hear the figures published by Citizens Advice but we do not understand where they come from. They are not borne out by our understanding. Let me move on to talk about disability living allowance.

Liam Byrne: rose—

Mark Hoban: I want to move on. I have been very generous in giving way to the right hon. Gentleman, as he acknowledged.
	We all know that some disabled people face extra costs as a result of the impact of their disability. The main source of financial support, disability living allowance, has not been fundamentally reformed since 1992. Our welfare reforms presented an opportunity to start afresh, keeping the best elements of DLA that people value, but bringing the benefit up to date to make it fit for the 21st century. The personal independence payment—PIP—is
	easy to understand and administer. It is financially sustainable and more objective. It will be better targeted on those in most need. Throughout the whole development, we have consulted widely with disabled people and have used their views to inform policy design. We have continued to listen and consult, ensuring that these reforms continue to be shaped by the views of disabled people themselves. In other words, reform is not static and this Government are committed to listening and acting where change is required.
	Instead of simply cutting money from everyone, we chose the more difficult but principled option of modernising the benefit and focusing support where it is most needed. PIP will be awarded on the basis of a fair, consistent and objective assessment which will enable us to target support on those who face the greatest barriers to independent living. More than one fifth of PIP recipients will get both of the highest rates, worth £134.40 each week, compared with only 16% on DLA. That demonstrates that we are focusing support on those in most need.

William Bain: Does the Minister accept the figure in the Demos and Scope study which indicates that 3,000 households could be affected by six individual welfare changes and lose as much as £4,500 a year? Does not that cumulative effect on living standards create the need for a cumulative assessment of what welfare reform is doing?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman illustrates in that question the impossibility of the task suggested in the motion. He has focused on one area. He has not taken into account tax changes, changes in fuel duty, the additional money that we are spending on improving access, the pupil premium or the changes that we are making to social care. To do an assessment properly—to look at that level of detail—as the motion suggests, involves looking across the whole of Government in a way that no Government have done before. It is the complexity of the issue that defeats specialist bodies trying to assess the full impact.
	We did hear two bits of policy from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill. He backtracked on the spare room subsidy but he also talked about care. We are constantly looking at ways of joining up and simplifying care. We have made fundamental reforms to improve systems and bring spending under control. The Care Bill goes much further than ever before in giving disabled people real control. We are taking practical and far-reaching steps—for example, extending personal budgets for health and care, introducing a new duty on local authorities to co-operate, and introducing education, health and care plans for our children and young people. We will bring forward proposals in the autumn to improve employment support for disabled people.
	The right hon. Gentleman spoke about a new single personal budget, but as usual there is no detail. He said nothing about how it will be funded—a point proved by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard)—nothing about whether it will be means-tested, and nothing about whether local and national systems will be integrated. Will the right hon. Gentleman abolish PIP, for example? He told us nothing about how such an assessment would work, and nothing about the data-sharing issues that clearly
	arise. It is very clear that that is yet another kite flown by him with no information, no detail, no substance—again, three years in opposition completely wasted, with no fresh ideas.
	We are clear that this Government always inform their decisions with equality analysis of policy changes, as required by the Equality Act 2010. All major welfare reform changes have been accompanied by a published equality impact assessment and these are updated if impacts change. I reiterate that a cumulative impact assessment would be so complex and subject to so many variables that it would be meaningless, helping neither individuals nor policy makers, and it would soon be incorrect and out of date. This may be something that the right hon. Gentleman wants to push, but it has not been done by any Government.
	The Treasury does publish a broad-brush cumulative analysis of all tax, benefit and public service reforms at every fiscal event. This is a coalition initiative and something that the previous Government did not do. It is by its nature broad-brush, aimed at checking the broad distributional impacts of Government policy. It is not possible to do a meaningful breakdown for the disabled population. That is exactly why the previous Government did not do it. That is why I encourage my hon. Friends to vote against the motion. They know that it cannot be delivered. I urge them to support the amendment, which sets out what the coalition Government have done in office. We have acted to build a modern system of financial support for disabled people, acted to strengthen employment support and acted to provide better care for disabled people. We are delivering real reform for disabled people.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day. On the motion relating to the draft Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations, the Ayes were 273 and the Noes were 27, so the Question was agreed to.
	[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
	I notify the House that several right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, as a consequence of which I have imposed, with immediate effect, a seven-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. As with all time limits in these circumstances, it is subject to review, depending on levels of interest and rates of progress.

Tom Greatrex: I congratulate my right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench on the motion and on rightly acknowledging the campaign outwith this place to bring the cumulative impact assessment to our attention.
	I will begin with a non-partisan point: I believe that all of us in this House, whichever side we sit on, do our best to stand up for our constituents. Many of those who come to see us are the most disadvantaged, which is why it is right to point out that Members on both sides have been approached by constituents who are concerned about the impact of recent changes in Government policy—and not just the intended consequences, but sometimes the unintended consequences. That is why a cumulative impact assessment is so vital.
	Many of the people who come to see me in my surgeries or whom I interact with in my constituency are disabled, have been injured at work or, through no fault of their own, find themselves unable to work, and what they want is to live as independently as possible, which requires a level of support. For some of them, the impact of certain changes in Government policy might be difficult but will not necessarily make an overall difference. The cumulative impact of those changes, however, can often make a very significant difference in the way they live their lives. That is why it is important to have a full and complete assessment. I hope that the Government, despite the contribution we have just heard from the Minister, will embrace that, not just because it is a coalition initiative but because it is fundamentally important when they are making such a significant change to the way in which support for disabled people works in the UK.
	In the time available, I would like to talk about the work capability assessment, which I have done on a number of occasions over the past two and a half years. I must say that the Minister’s predecessor, the current Lord Chancellor, was someone I could engage with. I would not always agree with him, but he would at least listen. I went to see him on a number of occasions. That attitude contrasts sharply with what we have seen more recently. I make that point because I am afraid that that attitude underlies the importance of having this type of cumulative assessment.
	I have asked a number of parliamentary questions about the work capability assessment. The Minister, who is now listening, will recall that I have asked written questions that his Department has answered, but lately it has decided that it will not answer them. It has decided that, as a result of a change in the resources available to it, it will not answer those questions because they were requested in a slightly different form. Those questions were asked in exactly the same way, but the Minister refused to answer them. He will be aware, because there have been at least two debates on this, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) had sought to meet him, along with me and other campaigners, but he has refused to do so.

Mark Hoban: To be clear, what I have said—I have written to the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) about this—is that if We Are Spartacus, the group he wants to bring, comes up with some positive suggestions on how we can improve the WCA, I will meet it.

Tom Greatrex: If the Minister will not see my right hon. Friend, how can he know of the level of constructive engagement that the group is offering? The judgment he made at the start of that exchange was precisely that he would refuse to see it because he did not want to engage with it. I will leave the matter to my right hon. Friend, who I am sure will wish to speak about it. That is the point I am trying to make in relation to a number of consistent examples. I hope the Minister will reflect on it today and over the summer.
	The National Audit Office commented last summer on the DWP’s failure to apply the penalties or service credits within the WCA in relation to Atos Healthcare’s
	underperformance and failure to seek adequate financial redress. It was almost as if it just did not want to apply them, because that would indicate that there was a problem in the system.

Robert Flello: My hon. Friend is making an extremely important speech. I am sure that his experience will be the same as mine: when constituents come to see me, time and again they mention Atos. That is the only word I seem to hear some days because of the nightmare that that company is and the problems it causes to my constituents.

Tom Greatrex: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he makes an important point. It is partly about Atos Healthcare, which has delivered the contract appallingly, but it is also about the deficiencies in the contract, which this Government, particularly—it gives me no pleasure to say this—since the current Minister has been in place, seemingly refuse to deal with.
	Dr Greg Wood is a doctor who was employed by Atos until he left its employ at the start of May this year. In the middle of May, he made a series of serious and very specific allegations about his experience as a doctor working at an Atos centre and the way in which the work capability assessment was carried out. For the record, he suggests not that we should get rid of the assessment, or even that it gets cases wrong at either end of the scale, but that people in the middle are being caught because of the flawed way in which the system is designed and implemented. He said that
	“claimants are often not being assessed in an even handed way… HCPs are not free to make independent recommendations, important evidence is frequently missing or never sought in the first place, medical knowledge is twisted and points are often wrongly withheld through the use of an erroneously high standard of proof”.
	He said that if Atos assessors
	“show deviation from the official line the HCP is instructed to change the report”
	and:
	“In about a quarter of assessments important documentary evidence is missing but the assessments go ahead regardless.”
	He said that training of new HCPs creates an environment where they
	“expect that they will see in the course of their work score too few points to qualify for ESA. This is often the de facto starting hypothesis, with the effect that the claimant usually faces an uphill struggle before the assessment has even begun.”
	He said that HCPs often “begrudgingly” score claimants and that an attitude is drilled into them
	“which leans towards finding reasons not to award points”.
	Those are very serious and specific allegations that I would have expected the Government to take seriously, given the warm words we frequently hear from the Minister and the Secretary of State, who has now left his place, about improving this process and constantly being vigilant about making it better for people.
	I wrote to the Prime Minister on the same day asking him to investigate the allegations. He passed the correspondence on to the Secretary of State, who wrote back to me on 22 June. I got back a one-page letter—I have it here—that made absolutely no reference to any of the specific allegations. It did not say that there was a problem; it was just a standard response. The Government wanted to brush it under the carpet. That attitude belies the problems that exist.
	On the same day, the Secretary of State’s private office e-mailed me, by mistake, a copy of a letter to another Member of Parliament—a Government Member—raising an individual’s case to which there was a much more systematic and detailed response. That is perhaps because the initial letter came from me, or from a Labour Member. I very much hope not, because they were very serious allegations that the Government decided to ignore completely.
	This is not just about the frustrations of seeking information from the Government, although I admit that I do get frustrated about that. It is not just about the waste and inefficiency in a programme that is costing £110 million a year for the Atos contract, and now up to £70 million this year in the appeals process to correct the mistakes. It is not just about an attitude, although I say again that I have found the Minister to be dismissive, evasive and sometimes partisan in our engagement on this issue. It is also about the experience of real people in every single part of this country who often have to adjust their life circumstances due to events completely beyond their control due to illness, accident or incident. It is about people who will have seen a system that is not working properly because the Government rolled out the migration from incapacity benefit without taking into account the lessons identified in the pilot projects, with the consequences that we have seen since. Most of all, it is about decency, compassion and helping people, not hounding people. The system is wrong and it needs to change.

Paul Maynard: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate—a debate that the Labour party has been running away from for far too long. For all its praise of Pat’s petition, which was placed on 1 November 2011, it took until 6 February 2013 for the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), to have the courage even to meet them. When he met them, what did their website say? It said that he had promised them an Opposition day debate as soon as possible, before the Budget. The Budget and the spending review have been and gone, and now what do we see? It is a press release from the shadow Secretary of State claiming that he has dragged Ministers to the Chamber, but it is he and his Front Benchers who have been dragged to this Chamber by Pat’s petition, We are Spartacus and other extremist disability groups that do not speak for the overall majority.
	Let me explain to Labour Front Benchers why I might have sympathy with their reluctance. The cumulative impact assessment is a very narrow tool by which to judge the contribution of the disabled community in this country, their potential and what they can achieve. I think that it borders on the offensive and would suggest that Labour look a little more widely.
	Just last week the Minister for the disabled, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), published the final set of documents of the “Fulfilling Potential” report. I urge those who want a proper cumulative impact assessment to look at the technical annexe, which is a far more challenging set
	of indicators than a cumulative impact assessment would provide and a far more nuanced, reasoned view of what being disabled means in Great Britain today.
	Labour’s empty rhetoric and its sole focus on benefits as a measure of the quality of life of disabled people do a disservice to the wider disabled community. We often hear Labour Members talk of their desire for welfare reform. When we drill down to what they mean, as we have tried to today, it is very clear that they want more money for more people. The do not understand the nature of reform.
	Let me quote what one of our eminent Paralympians, Jonnie Peacock, who won so many medals last year, said on 8 September 2012:
	“I did not think I should be taking DLA from people who should be getting it. There are people who should not be on it and are getting it, and there are people who should be getting it and are receiving nothing. The testing could be more secure and then they could award the benefits to the right people.”
	I cite that because it is clearly not a pro-Government press release, but a middle-of-the-road assessment that the vast bulk of disabled people share about what is occurring in this country.

Fiona O'Donnell: Will the hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that people with disabilities are being disproportionately hit by the cuts this Government are making?

Paul Maynard: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. What I will acknowledge is that we are going through a period of profound and challenging change. We as a Government are seeking to edge towards greater recognition of the social model of disability, and that means not paying attention to the labels that too many want to hang around the necks of disabled people.
	The personal independence payment, for example, looks at how individuals cope with their own conditions and disabilities. It does not say, “Tick box x for condition y and you will get these benefits.”

Fiona O'Donnell: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman does not understand what is in the assessment. It asks for very narrow yes or no responses that do not allow people to explain the nature of their abilities and disabilities.

Paul Maynard: I think that the hon. Lady misunderstands the actual point of PIP; it is to look at how people cope with their conditions. They are given ample opportunity to submit evidence and we help them to do that in my constituency surgeries. I hope that Labour Members do so, too, rather than store up a treasure trove of Atos scare stories that make people more scared of attending an Atos appointment than they were before.

Liam Byrne: rose—

Paul Maynard: I have given way enough times and the shadow Secretary of State has had his opportunity. If those on the Opposition Front Benches paid more attention to the “Fulfilling Potential” report, they might be a little chilled by what they read. Page 34 states clearly:
	“Young people’s aspirations can decline in response to their growing understanding of the world”.
	Listening to Opposition Members, I am sure that young people’s aspirations will decline because of the negative messages they are getting. The report states:
	“By the age of 26 disabled people are less confident”
	about entering into the world. I think we should be celebrating the fact that this Government are taking steps on a broad range of measures—not merely disability benefits—that the previous Government never had the courage to take.
	For example, consider a young person who wishes to go to university. Under the Labour Government they were scared to do so because they could not guarantee that their care package would be made portable. With this Government’s Care Bill, we are doing just that. How can we put a price on aspiration? How can we quantify hope? What do I say to disabled people using an organisation in my constituency that has just introduced a “Safe Journey” card they can show on trams to ensure that it pulls away more slowly and they do not get flung to the ground? How are such things incorporated into the precious cumulative impact assessment? So much that can be done for the disabled community will never appear in any impact assessment, but it can be reflected in what we are doing with the “Fulfilling Potential” initiative.
	I begin to despair at so much of what I hear from the Opposition Benches and it makes me truly angry. I pay tribute to the previous Government for their work to try to improve awareness of disability hate crime. However, I react with fury to the reaction of so many Opposition Members when the reporting of incidents of disability hate crime increases because of work done by this Government, and the previous Government, to create an atmosphere in which people are more confident to report such crime. We are told that an increase in the reporting of hate crime is evidence of the Government’s war on the disabled. I find that disgusting. It is personally abhorrent that people should campaign in a partisan way on the backs of those in the most vulnerable section of our society, to make a partisan point. That does nothing.
	The contribution of disabled people to this country goes far wider than the amount they receive in benefits. I recognise, however, that we cannot talk of aspiration or fulfilling potential if we do not have a stable system of state support. We are trying to ensure that the right people get the right amount of money to match their needs, abilities and aspirations to work, live their lives and fulfil their ambitions, not match the labels hung around their necks by the Labour party.

Tom Clarke: I have great respect for the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), and although I do not agree with everything he said, like my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), he brought some reality to a debate that so far—I am referring to contributions from the Government Benches—does not seem to relate to the world in which I live, the people I meet, or the families I represent.
	The Minister read out what seemed to be a civil service briefing, but disabled people watching that are too accustomed to being asked to fill in large forms and
	all sorts of bureaucracy to be impressed by such an approach. We did not hear from Government Members of organisations such as Save the Children, Mencap, Radar, Enable and so on, which have proof of the cuts the Government are making, and particularly the disproportionate impact of those cuts on disabled people.
	Let us return—it is right to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker—to the bedroom tax. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), who has now left the Chamber, basically defended what the Government are proposing, as did the Prime Minister right from the beginning. The Minister did not say, however, that the Government have since done two U-turns.

Kwasi Kwarteng: What is the policy of the Labour Front Benchers? Their position regarding the bedroom tax seems to be all over the place. We have heard that the Leader of the Opposition has said that Labour would not repeal it, yet in this debate the Labour Front Benchers have suggested that they would.

Tom Clarke: There was a time when I was on the Front Bench and I might have been happy to respond to that point. I am satisfied that the Labour party will present to the British people at the election a manifesto that they will endorse. I will fight and fight again, whatever Government are in power, to ensure that this monstrosity of legislation does not remain on the statute book.
	Let us examine what the bedroom tax means to ordinary people in our constituencies. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) said, two thirds of those affected by the bedroom tax have a disability. That is absolutely outrageous. How can the Government have seriously considered putting in place such a proposal? According to an estimate by the National Housing Federation, 2,128 households will be affected in my constituency, and according to the Government’s own estimates 1,419 of them—along with 83,000 in Scotland and more than 400,000 throughout the country—are occupied by someone with a disability.
	The Government claim that they are putting the housing market in a more appealing position. However, when we look at statistics—indeed, before we even do so—we know that there are simply not enough houses with the right facilities to which to remove disabled people if they have an extra bedroom. I have thought during the debate about several disabled people in my constituency and others I have met throughout the country. Two or three years ago, a young woman in my constituency was dying of variant CJD. She needed her bedroom, and she also needed another bedroom to accommodate the equipment that she desperately needed, including her supply of oxygen. How can we allow the Government to remove disabled people to smaller houses, when we know that those houses are simply not there?

Barbara Keeley: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Has he encountered in his surgeries a family like I have in mine? They are a disabled couple in their 50s who need to move out of an upstairs flat because it is not accessible. They are being denied homes that would be accessible for them, such as those that already have a stairlift, because of the bedroom tax. The tax means that people have to move, and it restricts future choice too.

Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Even if there were sufficient accommodation for this huge change to take place, the trauma that people with disabilities, and in many cases their carers, will be asked to go through is simply unacceptable.
	Each of the people I have described stands to lose a minimum of £401 a year. At a time of rising fuel costs and rising prices in the shops, that £401 can be the difference between having electricity or not, having a warm home or not, or having three meals a day or not. The bedroom tax is creating fear and despair among the most vulnerable in my constituency and the country.

Sheila Gilmore: Is it not the point that, according to the Government’s forward budgets, they expect to make a saving from the bedroom tax, but if the people affected moved there would not be a saving? That is how cynical the policy is.

Tom Clarke: Again, that is a good point. I think of a constituent whose case I raised with the Prime Minister. I visited her the day after our exchange. Her house has been adapted because she is in a wheelchair, which she has to use upstairs as well as downstairs, so she needed a lift. That lift was provided in one of the rooms of her house. Are we to believe that it would help society for that woman to move to a smaller house, which would also have to be adapted? Where is the sanity of that, far less the decency?

Andrew Bridgen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that heavily adapted homes are excluded from the spare room subsidy?

Tom Clarke: They are not. If the hon. Gentleman reads the regulations, the two U-turns to which I referred to do not include heavily adapted homes, but we will continue to fight for that.
	Briefly on local government, we are told that the Government have increased funding for discretionary housing payments through local authority funds and that that will be enough, but we have seen a 338% increase in people applying for discretionary housing payments. Local authorities—I say this as a former president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—simply cannot find the money. The Government cannot keep cutting, cutting and cutting again and then say the responsibility lies with local authorities when every single pressure has been put on them.
	Personal independence payments are replacing disability living allowance. They will be paid at a different rate and the Government estimate that 600,000 fewer people will be eligible, all because the Government wish to reduce costs by 20%. Balancing the books, as they see it, is being done on the backs of disabled people, and that cannot be right.
	On the Work programme, we have been told that the Government want to get people with disabilities into work. That is an admirable objective, and one that I have supported for a very long time, but the Government must know that there are simply not enough jobs available, not only for people with disabilities but for others on benefits too.
	In 1986, I had the privilege of introducing what I hoped was a progressive Act relating to disability. I think of the people who supported it: Jack Ashley, Alf
	Morris and others on both sides of the House. It went through under a Thatcher Government. I say to Government Members to read what the Whips have told them to say and read what the civil servants have prepared, but to think and think again about how this policy affects ordinary people who are already disadvantaged, and, in all morality, to reject what the Government are seeking to do.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am grateful to be called in this debate.
	I can assure the House that the Whips have not told me anything about what to say; they have not given me any guidance. What I am going to say comes from my experience as a constituency MP of having to deal with a number of cases that relate to Government policy.
	On the so-called bedroom tax—the spare room subsidy—the Government are doing absolutely the right thing. If we consider that about a third of social housing tenants have spare rooms, and that about 1.8 million households remain on the social housing waiting list, we see that there is an imbalance. I saw this last year in a constituency surgery—a 58-year-old lady lived in a house with four bedrooms. She objected, as was her right, to the bedroom subsidy, yet at the same time—I am not divulging any confidences—her daughter and her daughter’s partner and their baby were living in a bedsit in the borough in my constituency. Clearly, there was a mis-match. It did not make sense for the lady to be living in a four-bedroom house at the taxpayers’ expense, while her daughter and granddaughter were living in a bedsit.

Fiona O'Donnell: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about disabled people. Approximately one in four disabled people in Scotland in social housing will be liable to pay the bedroom tax, but need that spare room as a direct result of their disability. Does he think that is fair?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I was mindful that we were talking about disability, but I wanted, at the beginning of my speech, to say that the Government were doing the right thing with the spare room subsidy.
	When the disability living allowance was introduced in 1992, the number of recipients was one third of what it is today; the number of people has tripled in 20 years. That does not reflect the changing work environment in Great Britain.

Anne McGuire: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that since 1992 the lives of disabled people have been transformed? In 1992, the expectation was that most disabled people would live in residential care as they got older, but now people are living in the community. Furthermore, the working-age increase has not been as dramatic as Ministers would like us to believe.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I accept that society has changed since 1992, but there has been a marked increase in costs. We cannot pretend, like Labour, that there is not an issue. As the shadow Secretary of State said, we need to have reform; the problem is that too many Opposition Members do not understand what that reform entails. To me, reform means directing funds to the people who are most vulnerable and who most need it.

Nigel Adams: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to look at the projected figures and assess what is likely to be spent under the new system in 2015-16 compared with the amount spent in 2009-10?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am happy to have taken that intervention. The projected figure of £13 billion is more in real terms than the figure in 2009-10 provided by the previous Government. That means not just more money, as my hon. Friend suggests, but more money directed at the people who need it the most. We are trying to reform the system, and we will succeed in doing so. We are taking an adult and mature view of the public finances and trying to direct scarce resources to people who most need them.
	It is all very well for Opposition Members to howl, holler and cry about cuts—that is what one expects them to do; they are doing their job—but Government Members have to take a mature and responsible approach to the public finances and introduce meaningful reform that we can afford and which can best help the most vulnerable.

Barbara Keeley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the economics of the situation to the 10,000 carers who expect to lose their carer’s allowance and who have probably already given up work to care? If they stop caring, there will be no saving in moving from DLA to PIPs and in all those people losing their DLA, because if their carers stop caring for them, they will end up in much more expensive state care homes.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am happy to have taken that intervention, but I must say that Opposition Members have totally ignored this issue of reform. We cannot continue on the basis that nothing has happened, that there are limitless resources and that we can simply give more money to more people; that is completely unacceptable. It is clear from any engagement with the electorate or any look at the polls or surveys of public opinion that the public have had enough. That is one of the problems with Labour’s political strategy. On welfare reform, it is completely incredible.

Fiona O'Donnell: The hon. Gentleman is confusing me slightly. Is it his understanding that the change from DLA to PIP will result in any savings to the Government, or does he think it will keep the budget at the same level?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I fear that that will be my last intervention. In the first instance, it is not about trying to cut how much money people get; its purpose is to direct the funds, recognising the expenditure constraints. The Opposition, in their robotic insistence on very simple, clear messages that are completely false and not based on any sense of reality, have forgotten about that. Considering that the DLA budget has gone up £10 billion in real terms—that is more than the Home Office budget or what we receive from capital gains tax and inheritance tax—it is vital that we are more sensible and intelligent in how we apply those funds.
	It is perfectly clear to me that the PIP reform will be much more intelligently applied than the DLA, the costs of which spiralled, as I have suggested. We had a self-regulatory system, whereby people could essentially say that they were eligible for the benefit.

Sheila Gilmore: rose—

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am not taking any more interventions. I have been perfectly generous enough and time is short.
	I am afraid this is not something that Labour Members are taking seriously. They are not taking reform seriously and are wilfully in denial about the scale of the fiscal mess that they made. It is disappointing that any constructive attempt by those of us on the Conservative Benches to reform our welfare system and introduce a measure of added fairness and greater efficiency—in terms of targeting people who need the money—is met by the same old stale cries and hollering from the Opposition. This is not a constructive debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys suggested, in a powerful and compelling speech, that the whole tone of the debate was demeaning to people who are vulnerable. The language is very much that of people who are victims and of trying to apply more money or thinking that money is the solution to everything, but there is a much wider range of criteria against which the issue can be discussed.
	Lastly, I want to say something about the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who represents Labour on this issue. He was the man who wrote that there was no money. It is important that the House is reminded of that. That is the general context in which this debate has to take place. A Government who are trying to reform are doing the right thing.

Fiona O'Donnell: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng). However, I have a sense of “Groundhog Day”, because the last time I rose to speak in a debate on this issue, he and his hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) were again the two poor souls who had been forced to stand up and try to defend the Government’s position. I am grateful for their contributions, although the other reason I have a sense of “Groundhog Day” is that I remember the same accusations being thrown around about extremist disability groups. Let us be clear who we are talking about.

Paul Maynard: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Fiona O'Donnell: The hon. Gentleman should first allow me to spell this out for him, then I will be happy to take his intervention. Does he include in his definition of “extremist disability groups” Citizens Advice, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Margaret Blackwood, Leonard Cheshire, Capability Scotland, Scope and many others that have today supported the call made by Opposition Members? Although I express my gratitude to my right hon. Friends on our Front Bench for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue, the praise should really go to those organisations, which have continued to champion the cause of people with disabilities. I hope the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys will now make it clear whether he thinks those organisations are “extremist”.

Paul Maynard: Will the hon. Lady confirm whether she has read the manifesto of the Campaign for a Fair Society, which wants to close down all special schools, all day care centres and most of the other segregated provision? Does she not regard that as extreme?

Fiona O'Donnell: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is a wide range of views on how we provide services for people with disabilities.

William Bain: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Fiona O'Donnell: I will deal with the question from the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys first.
	That wide range of views includes people who think that adults and children with disabilities and special needs should be shut away from society and protected, and those who think the complete opposite—that they should be fully integrated into society. There can also be a degree of tokenism, and we sometimes hear terms such as “real inclusion”, “rehabilitation” and “normalisation” being used. I do not agree with the stand that those people take. I note that the hon. Gentleman, in asking his question, did not answer my question to him.

Paul Maynard: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Fiona O'Donnell: No, I have given the hon. Gentleman one opportunity to answer it. He had seven minutes in which to put the record straight, but he did not do so. I am going to make some progress now.
	The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions does not like it when the human cost of the changes he is making are brought to his attention. We saw just how angry he can get when Owen Jones presented him with some case studies on “Question Time”. That is what this debate is about. I found it incredibly moving when my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) asked her question of the Prime Minister today and described someone calling her office who was feeling suicidal because of the impact of the changes. I am not for one minute suggesting that Ministers are wilfully causing that kind of suffering and harm, and, at times, I defend them in that regard. However, I get very angry e-mails using language that is inappropriate, even when attacking the Government, and the Government are going to have to acknowledge at some point that there is a very different feeling out there of the kind that we have never seen before. We are hearing that from Welfare Rights, from Citizens Advice and from the people who contact us and come to our surgeries. I would never have believed that, as a Member of Parliament, I would have to put in place procedures for my staff to deal with a constituent whom they believe to be at risk of taking their own life. At some point the Government are going to have to respond to that, not with anger but by taking seriously the impact of these changes on people with mental health problems.
	I hope that the Minister will talk today about mental health champions, which were introduced as a result of the review, and that she will tell us what impact they are having. How is she monitoring them? I think that we have two for the whole of Scotland. Is there evidence that they are making a difference?

William Bain: rose—

Jim Shannon: rose—

Fiona O'Donnell: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain).

William Bain: Is not the whole point of this debate to point out that we need the necessary information in order to see the impact of the benefit changes. Did she see the recent comments from Scope, which indicated that as a result of the changes to employment and support allowance and to the disability living allowance, some 26,000 people could lose between £17,000 and £23,000 over five years? Do not those people deserve the relevant information, and do not we all deserve a cumulative impact assessment?

Fiona O'Donnell: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a valuable contribution to the debate.
	I freely admit that I want this Government gone; that is my agenda. It is not a narrow political agenda that has brought all those organisations and disabled people to the House today to make their views heard. They are saying that, as the Government press on with the changes, they need the relevant information. Councils, medical services, social workers and disability organisations also need that information so that they can respond and support people adequately through this process.

Kwasi Kwarteng: rose—

Fiona O'Donnell: I will give way for the last time. I apologise to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that I shall not have time to give way to him.

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Lady has talked about the Government’s position but, for the benefit of the House, will she clarify the position of the Opposition, particularly on the bedroom tax?

Fiona O'Donnell: Our position on that has been stated time and again. If we were in government today, we would axe the bedroom tax. Of course our manifesto has not been written at this time, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the people who have e-mailed me that I will be pressing the Labour party to make a commitment to axe the bedroom tax. I want to see such a commitment in our manifesto, because it is a grossly unfair tax on people who are often very vulnerable.

Cathy Jamieson: rose—

Fiona O'Donnell: I am sorry. Fond as I am of my hon. Friend, I really want to make a bit of progress.
	The Government must expect anger in reaction to what they are doing. Let us not forget where this whole process started. We had a proposition to take away the mobility component of DLA from people in residential care. I think that a lot of people who voted for this Government thought it would be a Government who understood the rights of people with disabilities. That was proved absolutely not to be the case—no more so than when the Prime Minister stood at that Dispatch Box and compared someone living in a residential care setting to someone in a hospital. That completely missed the difference between a medical model and a social model of care. The reality is that this Government have been one step behind people with disabilities and the organisations that represent them at every step in the process. That is why they should expect only anger from people out there.
	I want to talk a little more about the bedroom tax and the false claim from Government Members—I am sure the Minister will support me in this—that the Government have exempted from the regulations and removed from the impact of the bedroom tax people with disabilities who have adapted their homes. That is not the case. As I understand it, that is the case only when support is also offered. The Minister will no doubt be aware that in Scotland, we are undergoing a change in the way people with disabilities are empowered to buy their own care through direct payments. This means that many people, whom I hope she would have included in the exemptions from the tax, will no longer be exempted, because they are being empowered to buy their care and not receive it from the provider who owns the property in which they live. That seems to me to be an unfair imposition.
	Finally, I ask the Minister to respond to the court ruling on the Gorry case, where a child with a severe disability was sharing a room with a sibling. The court ruled that it was discrimination under the terms of the Equality Act 2010 to compel the child to share a room, given the extent of his disability. Will the Government act on this, and most of all, will they give the organisation that is going to have to support people through this incredibly difficult process the information it needs? They should support this motion. Let us see the true extent of this problem so that these people can be supported.

Greg Mulholland: Just a few hours ago, I was delighted and hugely proud to be with my constituent, Nathan Popple, as he received the award from Whizz-Kidz as this year’s Whizz-Kidz campaigner of the year. Nathan has shown incredible courage, determination and dedication, not just in organising this campaign but in speaking up on behalf of disabled people of all ages in Leeds. I am proud, too, to work with Whizz-Kidz and its inspirational ambassadors to ensure that the voice of disabled people of all ages, but particularly young disabled people who have so much potential, is heard.
	There is, of course, a partisan element to today’s debate, but we all need to remember that what we all seek to try to do—we know that all Governments succeed in part and fail in part to achieve this—is to give all disabled people the opportunity to live, to work and to do the sorts of things that we all take for granted. We want all people, including people with disabilities, to be able to take those things for granted by providing them with the support that they need.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman was right and honest in what he said in his introduction. The facts in my constituency—and, I suspect, in many others—are that people are being turned down for employment support allowance and disability living allowance in greater numbers than ever before. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) mentioned “Groundhog Day”, but it is not “Groundhog Day” when it comes to the statistics, which show greater numbers of people affected. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the system needs to be reviewed so that those who need the benefits most are not restricted from receiving them?

Greg Mulholland: I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, the experience of all right hon. and hon. Members is crucial; each and every one of us should be bringing constituents’ cases not only to this House, but to Ministers. That is part of how we learn.
	Secondly, all Governments must be prepared to do full impact assessments of policies before they are implemented, as has been done, and then to review them constantly. I do not want the message to be sent out that the Government are afraid of doing that. We need a constant and ongoing review, and I hope we get that message. I have made that point specifically about the under-occupancy penalty, to give that policy its honest and factual name.
	We have to accept that there were many flaws in the system inherited by the Government. Although undoubtedly well intentioned and in some ways positive, the Welfare Reform Act 2007 had flaws and did not always do the kind of things that we would all want it to do. It was right that it was reviewed.
	The question that we should ask, and I hope we will all ask today, is not about whether reform was needed, because it very clearly was, but about whether the reforms are the right ones. We should be asking that question continually, and not from a partisan perspective on either side. Are the reforms working and delivering for disabled people? If and where they are not working, we should look into that. I have no problem in saying that and urging Ministers to review the situation on an ongoing basis.

Sheila Gilmore: In the course of the debates about the Welfare Reform Bill, people predicted that a number of specific issues would be difficult. For example, there was an amendment suggesting that adapted properties should be exempted from the bedroom tax. Does the hon. Gentleman now regret that his party did not support those changes?

Greg Mulholland: I pay tribute to the work of the Work and Pensions Committee, of which I was proud to be a member in the last Parliament. It has a vital role to play and I look forward to its ongoing reports, which should be part of the review into these policies.
	The hon. Lady knows, having listened to me in debates on more than one occasion, that I personally felt unable to support the under-occupancy penalty precisely because there were not the sort of exemptions that I believed should be included. I thank Ministers for listening to at least some of my points and introducing further exemptions before the policy was introduced, but I would like more exemptions and I will continue to press for them.
	During our last debate on the subject, I stood in this exact place—the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) was probably very near where she is now—and said that the Government must and should commit to a review on the specific policy. We did get that commitment. There must be a review, which should be done not only through the Department for Work and Pensions but in conjunction with councils up and down the country, so that we get an open and honest assessment of how the policy is affecting disabled people.

Anne Begg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Greg Mulholland: I will give way one more time, as it is the hon. Lady.

Anne Begg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous. People living in a house specifically adapted for them have to pay the bedroom tax and therefore often have to apply for a discretionary housing payment. In most cases, they will get that payment into the future, which suggests that the payment should not be discretionary but automatic. Could the hon. Gentleman use that fact in his argument with Ministers about why those living in specifically adapted houses should be exempt?

Greg Mulholland: It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Lady and it was a pleasure to serve with her on the Work and Pensions Committee in the last Parliament, before she was Chair.
	The hon. Lady knows that I have said that we should be discussing cases in which rooms deemed to be spare have not been spare. Some of those issues were dealt with in respect of the equipment needed and so on, and I was pleased with that. However, I feel that if discretionary payments are needed again and again and categories are established, those categories should warrant an exemption. I will continue to make that case and to push for a review.
	In the limited time that I have left, I should look at some of the other issues covered in this broad debate, which the House should revisit regularly. It should discuss the issue at least twice a year because the situation is in a state of flux, which has been brought about, in part, by the economic situation and the need to look at the overall welfare budget, which all parties, including the Labour party, very clearly said needs to be reformed. We should also do so, however, to check on the positive reforms and make sure that these policies are indeed doing what we collectively want them to do. The Opposition were clear that DLA needed reform; indeed, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who opened the debate for the Opposition, said that.
	To respond to a point made earlier, it is very important that the wrong messages are not given out today, because the reality is that overall spending on personal independent payments and DLA will be higher in real terms in every year up to 2015-16 than spending was on DLA to 2009-10. This is not about seeking to reduce the welfare budget, therefore; instead it is about directing it at people who need it, and looking in particular at what people can do and genuinely empowering them, rather than judging people on what they cannot do.
	Does that mean PIP will be absolutely perfect in a way that DLA was not? Of course not, and we all have to accept that every single change to any benefit will have implications and consequences, and it is right that we should look at them, but simply to use this debate as an opportunity to bash the Government on policy fails to achieve what I hope is the Opposition Front-Bench team’s intention: to say we must be looking on an ongoing basis at the impact of these policies.
	I want to hear from Ministers today that they are not in any way afraid of having a review and that there must be a constant review of all policies in this area. My position on the motion is that I believe we should have a proper assessment, but that we should have one next year. That is my position simply because the big change
	from DLA to PIP is being introduced this year. I do believe we should have a review, however, and I hope we hear that from the Minister, too, so we do not send out the false message that we do not want a review.

Ian Mearns: I am grateful to my Front-Bench colleagues for choosing to debate this cause, which I brought to the House’s attention in a Westminster Hall debate at the end of last year, on 18 December, when I urged the Minister for disabled people, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), to conduct a cumulative impact assessment on the real-term effects of welfare reform on the most vulnerable people in our society. I am sure she will remember that very well-attended debate.
	The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have repeatedly lectured us about the need for fairness and said that we are all in this together. However, it is clear that it is not the richest, most powerful and most able in our society who will pay the costs of this Government’s cold calculation and uncaring disregard. Instead, it will be the least able, the most vulnerable and the least powerful—the disabled—who will pay the price.
	We call for a cumulative impact assessment because a range of cuts and changes is taking place at the same time, and we need to assess their cumulative effect. I am sure Members have read, or at least heard of, the report “The Tipping Point” by the Hardest Hit campaign, which concluded:
	“Many disabled people feel that they are living on the edge, and that the loss of even a small amount of income could tip their already complex lives into greater dependence and insecurity.”
	That has been brought into stark relief by campaigns outside this House by organisations such as the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, Mind and Carers UK, and the WOW petition and Pat’s petition. They have brought this to our attention, although I think Members already knew about it because in our surgeries we and our caseworkers are dealing with it in person, on the telephones and via e-mail on a daily basis.
	“The Tipping Point” study discovered that disabled people and their families are struggling to make ends meet and feel increasingly nervous about the future, and because of that the Government need to act urgently to arrest disabled people’s slide into entrenched isolation and poverty. Members have heard of Pat’s petition, which had been signed by 62,500 people at the last count that I saw. It called on the Government to:
	“Stop and review the cuts to benefits and services which are falling disproportionately on disabled people, their carers and families”.
	I ask the Government not only to listen, but to act.
	Let us look at the elements of welfare reform that are having an impact on disabled people, and their carers and families. The introduction of the universal credit will result in 2 million households seeing a drop in their income, with disabled people being among those worst affected. The DWP’s own equality impact assessment from November 2011 predicted that disabled households would lose £37 a week, compared with a figure for non-disabled households of only £26 a week.
	Another major change is the introduction of the personal independence payment. Last year, in a Westminster Hall debate, the Minister with responsibility for disability
	matters said that 160,000 claimants would get a reduced award and 170,000 would get no award—that was before a single individual assessment had taken place, so it was a very mean prediction. That announcement concerned me greatly, given that the Minister already had figures on those who would get a reduced award and those who would receive no support before any assessments had taken place. Surely that suggests that the Minister is capping those on PIP, rather than that benefit is based on individual need.
	The issue of contribution-based employment and support allowance is affecting many of my constituents. The time limit of 365 days—one year—on those in the work-related activity group, and its retrospective implantation, is forcing many disabled people on to jobseeker’s allowance, given that there is no magic tree spouting jobs these days in places such as north-east England. As I am sure the Minister is aware, unemployment there is going up, not down, yet we seem to be expecting more people with disabilities, or profound disabilities, to get into the world of work, where jobs are already scarce.
	Let me give an example from my constituency. It concerns a lady suffering from bronchial pulmonary dysplasia, who was too ill for heart and lung transplant and who had been on steroids for 37 years. She had brittle bones—osteoporosis—kidney failure and was unable to walk. She regularly had fractures, she had osteoarthritis and she was diabetic. She was initially placed in the work-related activity group and told she would need to find work. As I am sure hon. Members have already fathomed out, she was housebound and bedridden. Thankfully, intervention from my office and other support groups showed that the DWP had clearly made a mistake and it was forced to retract that initial assessment.
	I do not wish to talk extensively about the bedroom tax, but so many people who face it do not have spare rooms. These rooms are used to store specialist equipment or are for a family carer, often a spouse or a partner, to sleep in; if those rooms were not available, they would not get that much-needed sleep. We need to remember that those carers save the Government about £100 billion a year, because they take on the role of caring for those disabled people almost exclusively.
	Before I move on, I need to talk briefly about Atos, its shocking assessments and the assessment process. I would need all day to discuss that, but I shall just say that the citizens advice bureau in Gateshead has undertaken 1,400 appeals on behalf of people, 1,200 of which have been successful.

Yvonne Fovargue: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the welfare reform assessments that are affecting the people with disabilities, but the legal aid changes, which meant that people can no longer appeal against these welfare benefit decisions with help from the CAB?

Ian Mearns: I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention, as she describes exactly why we need this cumulative impact assessment. So many different strands to this debate are having an impact on disabled people, and their carers and families.
	Before I finish my contribution, I want to refer to a website, calumslist.org, which shows how many suicidal deaths have been directly attributed to welfare reform by a coroner’s court. The total so far is 33. When we had the debate in Westminster Hall in December the figure was 24, so that cost is going up by the month. We need to ensure that the assessment criteria take proper account of the full range of barriers faced by people with disabilities and health conditions, making the assessment and reassessment processes as simple, transparent and proportionate as possible and ensuring that robust evaluation and monitoring processes are in place. We need to bring all the strands together—the bedroom tax, housing, the welfare reform and the changes to legal aid. All those things will have an impact on people’s capacity to deal with the real changes occurring in their lives day by day. I ask all Members to support the original motion.

Michael Meacher: Research published in March by the think-tank Demos and by the disability charity Scope, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) mentioned earlier, revealed that by 2017-18, 3.7 million disabled people will collectively lose £28 billion as a result of the Government’s cumulative benefit changes. If Scope and Demos can do a cumulative impact assessment, why cannot the Government? That is a staggering expropriation from arguably the most deprived and disadvantaged section of the entire population and it is perhaps worth rehearsing quickly the range of the cumulative impact: the incapacity benefit reassessment; the reassessment of the personal independence payments; the overall cap; the universal credit; the time limitation of employment support allowance; the change to local housing allowance; the bedroom tax; the abolition of the independent living fund; the 1% cap on benefit uprating; the localisation of and 10% cut in council tax benefit; and the 1% cap on various benefits and tax credits. That is the range of it.
	The study found that 123,000 disabled people faced three benefit cuts that will lose them an income of £18,000 in the five years to 2018. A group of nearly 5,000 disabled people will suffer a combination of six benefit cuts, losing a total of £23,000 each over five years. That works out as £88 per week per person, which for people on the breadline is absolutely huge.
	The gratuitous harshness of the Government’s treatment of disabled people comes out mostly in the initial attack on and forthcoming abolition of the independent living fund. The ILF gave new life, engagement, mobility and participation to severely disabled people. Two years ago, the Government closed the fund to any new claims and now they will devolve it to local authorities. Let me ask the Minister some questions—and I expect a reply. Will that be ring-fenced when it goes to local authorities? Will it be the same level of expenditure, with no reduction in public spending of the kind that the Government slipped in when they made the switch from DLA to PIP or in the devolution of the council tax benefit?
	Then we have Atos and the work capability assessments. Frankly, the ESA system is simply not working. A Citizens Advice study found that nearly half the Atos reports included inaccuracies that were so serious that they would have affected the decisions made and 70% of
	them included incorrect factual recordings of the history given. Reviews have found considerable variability in decision making, and there is a 42% success rate at appeal; the rate is much higher when the individual disabled person is represented. There is a very low employment rate among claimants 12 to 18 months after the decision.
	The inherent problems that remain with the ESA are legion. The descriptors do not capture a person’s state of health in a way that reflects their ability to work, while medical evidence from those who have detailed, accurate and relevant knowledge is ignored. The assessors lack the time, ability and medical knowledge to understand an individual’s condition and how it relates to work and the assessment is irrelevant to work because no attempt is made to discover what work an individual is supposed to be capable of doing.
	As so many disabled persons who have been through the process have said, the worst aspect of the employment and support allowance assessment is fear and insecurity. There is the belief that a test has been created for people to fail, no matter how sick they are; the stress that makes ill-health worse; and the stress and uncertainty of repeated assessments, which are like a sword of Damocles hanging over people perpetually.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) referred to Calum’s List. I thought 30 people had died; he says it is now 33. In nine cases, the family believe that stress triggered the death, and in 20 the person took their own life. Who is responsible for this bleak, unforgiving trail of misery? Behind Atos stands the Department for Work and Pensions, with its guidelines, regulations and descriptors, which underpin the Atos work; its targets—which are, of course, denied—for return-to-work decisions; and the sanctions to make sure that the assessors produce results.

Ian Mearns: One of the things that I find regrettable about this debate and previous debates that I have taken part in is that Government Members feel as though they are engaged in some sort of academic exercise; they are talking about statistics, rather than the impacts on real people.

Michael Meacher: I have certainly felt that. The Minister made an extraordinarily complacent and bland statement; he read out a speech that he was given by a civil servant as though he was seeing it for the first time. [Interruption.] I am referring not to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), but the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban); we will judge the Under-Secretary in a moment. The speeches from those on the Government Benches have been extraordinarily disappointing, but I want to keep to the subject of the debate.
	Behind the DWP stands the Treasury and the Chancellor, who have parcelled out targets for huge expenditure cuts, as we all know, without any prior investigation whatever of the extreme variability in human disability, let alone the wide differentials in job opportunities across the country. This is not an exercise in genuine social policy, but a preconceived shoehorning of the sensitivities of disability into the Chancellor’s unremitting cuts agenda.
	If the Under-Secretary wishes me to be a little more positive, I will be, gladly. It is not at all difficult to see what needs to be done. We should make much more use of evidence and the claimant’s own doctor; significantly increase the time available for an assessment; improve assessors’ questioning technique, and preferably transfer that whole function back to the national health service; provide the claimant with a copy of the medical report and an opportunity to discuss inaccuracies with the decision maker; and, above all, greatly improve the descriptors.
	I am sorry, but not surprised, that the Minister who spoke earlier has fled the Chamber; it is a pity. As he knows well—the Under-Secretary also knows; I spoke to her about this yesterday—for five months, I have been asking the Minister to meet a representative delegation to discuss these matters. I had to give the Minister a prior commitment—he seemed to need it for self-protection—that it would be a constructive engagement. It will be; we want to work with the Government to make things better, because we care about disabled people far more than we do about attacking the Government, although they deserve that we should. Given that the issue involves 1.5 million seriously disabled people, the reluctance of the Minister responsible, and his procrastination for so long a period as five months, is utterly scandalous. In the Under-Secretary’s reply to the debate, to which I shall listen very carefully, I expect her to tell us exactly when the Minister will meet us.

Debbie Abrahams: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher). I fully support what he said.
	I support the motion for a cumulative impact assessment by October 2013, and, like my right hon. Friend, I too speak in particular on behalf of my constituents. I am increasingly in contact with constituents who are struggling and bearing the brunt of the welfare reforms. In addition, other people have contacted me through various social media. As others have said, the effects are beyond a scale that has ever been experienced and unfortunately I believe that they will increase.
	We already know from the Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis of the Budget that the 40% of poorest households in the country will be worse off as a result of Budget cuts. Within that group the sick and the disabled are even more vulnerable. We have heard that analysis undertaken on behalf of Scope estimated that the six separate social security cuts, including changes to disability living allowance, employment support allowance, the bedroom tax, and the 1% cap on social security measures and the independent living fund will affect 3.7 million people by 2018. In total they will lose £28.3 billion.
	From that analysis we know that more than 26,000 people will have the triple whammy of losing ESA and DLA and having their ESA capped at 1%, losing between £17,000 and £23,000. That is in the context of a flatlining economy. Many disabled people do work and many more want to work, but it is impossible in the current economic climate, with an employment rate that is now lower than in 2008. On top of that there is the spiralling cost of living, with energy prices rising by 11% last year and food prices by 29% since 2009.
	Councils’ allocation of funding has been pared to the bone, with the average budget being cut by 28%. In my own council area nearly 50% of the budget has been cut, with another £50 million to find by 2015. As social care represents 25% of the council’s budget, the further impact that the cuts will have on this most vulnerable group is frightening.
	I attended a meeting with disabled people, their families and carers in Oldham recently, along with my right hon. Friend. Their fear for the future was palpable. They were terrified, particularly parents with adult disabled children, who did not know what would happen to their children and what they could expect. Their fear was born out of their experience in the past and what had been before. We have seen changes in opportunities for disabled people to live more normal lives. They feel that their situation is going backwards.
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights has stated that
	“we conclude that there is a risk of retrogression of the UK’s obligations under Article 19”—
	which enshrines the right to independent living for disabled people—
	“as a result of the cumulative impact of spending cuts and reforms.”
	The Committee called on the Government
	“to improve its capacity to conduct equality impact assessments, in particular to go beyond piecemeal analysis of each measure by assessing the proposed provisions as a whole, including their cumulative impact on individuals and groups, from an equality perspective”.
	As has been said, if Demos can do that on behalf of Scope, why on earth cannot the Government do it? It is disgraceful.
	We have heard about some of the issues relating to the work capability assessment. There was a case in my constituency of somebody having a heart attack while he was in the middle of going through a WCA. He was told by the nurse conducting the WCA that he had to go to hospital, and then he received a letter telling him that he had been sanctioned. What on earth is going on? This is not the behaviour of a civilised Government.
	I want to put on the record that this is about Government choices. The choices that the Government make are underpinned by their ideology. They are demonising people who are receiving benefits, creating antipathy and resentment in people who are not receiving benefits, creating an “us and them” culture through this antipathy to social security recipients, and then quietly dismantling our welfare system.
	As I have said before, and as I will carry on saying, I am proud of the welfare system we developed. It was born out of the second world war, when we really were all in it together. I want to retain that model, with its principles of inclusion, support and security for all, protecting any one of us should we fall on hard times or become disabled. It ensures that we have the basics and dignity in our lives.
	Fortunately, the British public are starting to see through what the Government are doing. As British social attitudes surveys consistently show, they want a fairer and more equal society, not a divided one. Trend analysis that I have undertaken in conjunction with
	sociologists from Oxford university shows that, rather than losing support for social security, the British people are a good barometer of what is right and just. When the myths about what the Government are doing are exposed, most people do not want a further downgrading of social security.
	Instead of demonising the poor and the disabled, we need to get the economy moving and tackle the massive private sector debt of our financial institutions, which is 400% of GDP and rising. That is the real issue, not sovereign debt, as the Government like to say, and it is getting worse. We should not be giving tax breaks to the wealthiest in society—£3 billion to over 300,000 people earning more than £150,000 a year—at the expense of the most vulnerable. I think that says it all.

Yasmin Qureshi: I support the Opposition motion. I was sad to hear some of the comments from the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), because no Opposition Members have tried to patronise or insult disabled people. The fact is that we recognise that financial equality for everyone must be preserved, and we know that disabled people will be fundamentally more affected by the proposed changes than others.
	Therefore, the fact that we are requesting something very simple—an assessment of the cumulative impact of these right-wing changes on disabled people—is nothing unusual. In fact, as a responsible Opposition who stand up for people, that is exactly what we should be asking for. It was not very helpful when the Minister, in response to my intervention, effectively said, “Well, the previous Government never carried out an assessment, so why should we?” That is just not good enough. They are the Government and they have brought in far-reaching changes, so the assessment should be carried out.
	I also know from the Remploy factory in my constituency, which I visited when it was still open, and from speaking to many disabled people, some of whom are my constituents, that they want to work and to fulfil their potential. However, all the changes that are being made will have an impact on them, and we want to protect them.
	I want to talk briefly about some of the proposed changes and why we think they will have more of an impact on the disabled. In the spending review in June this year, the Chancellor announced that for the first time ever there will be a cap on the UK’s welfare spending through changes to the annual managed expenditure. That means that if demand for disability benefit rises in future, there is a substantial risk that disabled people will lose vital financial lifelines. The impact will be that they will be left more exposed to trade-offs within the cap. If the need for housing benefit rises sharply one year, there is a risk that disability benefit will be a lower spending priority.
	The Welfare Reform Act 2012 introduced a number of measures, one of which was a new single benefit—universal credit—to replace six income-based benefits and tax credits for people of working age. Around 2 million households will see their income drop when universal credit is introduced, and disabled people will be particularly affected. While the average household will be worse off by £26, the average disabled household will be worse off by £37.
	Furthermore, the halving of support for disabled children from £57 a week to £28 a week could see a reduction in income for families with disabled children of up to £1,366 a year—more than £20,000 over the course of a childhood. It is estimated that this change will affect about 100,000 disabled children. The removal of the £58 a week severe disability premium will have a profound impact, affecting 230,000 disabled adults and potentially costing them more than £3,000 a year.
	The introduction of the personal independence payment, which is to be rolled out following the abolition of disability living allowance, means that over the next five years as many as 600,000 disabled people will lose £2.62 billion of support. The reforms mean that a disabled person could lose between £20.55 and £131.50 a week in support for the costs of living at home, such as preparing a cooked meal, or the costs of getting out and about aided by a wheelchair.
	Another change that is being introduced is the contributions-based employment and support allowance, which is to be subjected to a 365-day limit. It applies to disabled people in the work-related activity group who are assessed as not being able to work immediately but who could, with help and support, return to the labour market in future. This will affect some 700,000 people by the year 2015-16, and of those 40% will lose their ESA completely. This change could force disabled people back into work when they are not ready for it—and, let us face it, there are not many jobs out there in any event—and push them into disposing of any assets they have, with their partners perhaps having to cut back on their working hours. The effects of these changes are likely to be compounded by the Government’s recent decision, set out in the autumn statement, to increase the value of this benefit by only 1% instead of 2.2%, which is the current level of inflation.
	Much has been said about the bedroom tax, which reduces housing benefit for a social housing tenant whose accommodation is deemed to be larger than they need and will fall disproportionately on households with a disabled person. The DWP estimates that 670,000 people are under-occupying accommodation in the social rented sector, and of those, two thirds are disabled.
	There is also the benefits uprating. Although the Government have confirmed that PIP, ESA for the support group and disability-related tax credits will rise in line with inflation, ESA for the work-related activity group, housing benefit and working tax credit are set to rise by only 1% for three years. Given the cumulative impact of all these reforms, the Government must surely carry out an assessment.

Katy Clark: We have heard some excellent speeches outlining the cumulative impact that the Government’s policies will have on disabled people. Many Members’ concerns relate directly to decisions taken by this Government, but many such decisions will be taken by the Scottish Government, by the Welsh Government, or by local authorities, who are also having their funding cut. It is an incredibly complex issue given all the various factors that are leading to disabled people having their living standards cut.
	In the area that I represent, of course, we have a devolved Administration—the Scottish Government—and
	they have carried out work on these issues. A committee has been set up in the Scottish Parliament to look at welfare reform in Scotland. It estimates that in my area, North Ayrshire, £51 million will be taken out of the economy in 2015 by the various changes that have already been put through this Parliament. In the two years leading up to the general election there will probably be a range of further attacks that will have further impacts on the area I represent. The figure of £51 million relates not just to those who are disabled, but to those who will be affected by the various changes in different ways.
	The incredibly powerful emotions under discussion are being generated by campaigns outside this place. They have not been cobbled together by special advisers in a back room; they are being led by disabled people themselves, nationally and through various organisations. Some of those organisations have been criticised in this debate, but, to be frank, some hon. Members have spoken ill because they do not appreciate how difficult it is for disabled people to organise themselves to campaign on these issues or how many obstacles they face in getting involved in the political process. The campaigns have involved not only national organisations but many local organisations. In my constituency, for example, the Three Towns carers organisation, which supports carers, campaigns on many of these issues and brings their impact to the attention of politicians.
	Whenever I hold events in my constituency on issues such as the bedroom tax and welfare changes, I am visited increasingly often by carers who care for people with disabilities who cannot look after themselves. On hearing their stories, I have absolutely no doubt that it makes no economic or social sense to target this group of people. Often they live in accommodation that has already received a great deal of state investment. Often they live in social housing properties on which a large amount of money has been spent to adapt them to meet the needs of people with disabilities. Putting such people in a situation whereby they may not be able to continue to live in their property makes no sense whatsoever, even on economic grounds.
	I was exceptionally pleased to hear the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on the abolition of the independent living fund. The people who come to see me who care for people with some of the worst forms of disability have a massive fear of the threat to take away the ILF money that enables them to live independently.
	The reality is that not all parts of the country will be affected equally. The changes will have a greater effect on certain parts, including deprived areas where people do not live as long as those in wealthier areas. The cumulative impact of an industrial past on such areas means that far more people there are reliant on the benefits under discussion and that, statistically, more of them suffer from illnesses and disabilities than people elsewhere. Members of those communities therefore have less resilience to be able to deal with these kinds of cuts.

Cathy Jamieson: My hon. Friend is speaking passionately and eloquently. Does she share my concern about the apparent inconsistencies in the application of discretionary housing payments? For some families it appears to be another layer of means-testing, rather than an assessment of their needs.

Katy Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who represents a neighbouring constituency and whose constituents face similar issues to my own. We heard earlier that the discretionary fund is completely unable to deal with the scale of the problem. I think it was suggested that one in 10 people will be able to get proper compensation from the funds available. There may well be discrepancies throughout the country; geographically, different parts of the country will face different situations.
	We know from various studies in Scotland that £1 billion is expected to be taken out of the pockets of those who currently receive disability benefits. Citizens Advice has said that across the UK up to half a million disabled people will lose out, just because of the change to universal credit. As we move towards those changes and the personal independence payment, a cumulative range of impacts will disproportionately affect those with disabilities.
	Neither party in the coalition Government has any mandate for such an attack on working people or for targeting those with disabilities. I believe the British people have the right to know the truth, and we should not rely on charities and independent organisations to give us information. We know that the Government do not like impact assessments—we have seen in other areas of policy that they are completely unwilling to provide such assessments regarding what will happen to women or people from ethnic backgrounds. Today we must make it clear that we expect the Government to tell the truth about the impact of their policies on disabled people. If we do that, we will get the support of the British public.

Sheila Gilmore: To justify many of their benefit changes the Government have had to construct a narrative that the system required a complete overhaul. I suspect we shall hear that from the Minister when she responds to the debate, so I shall pre-empt it with a narrative about the disability living allowance.
	The DLA is old-fashioned and too reliant on physical disabilities. The Minister is fond of saying that the new system will be better for those with learning difficulties, mental health problems and so on, but if overall numbers are to be reduced—nobody has suggested they will not be—and more people with mental health problems are included, who will be excluded? We need to know that.
	It has been argued that DLA is too easy to obtain, but more than half of all claims are refused when first applied for. Part of the idea that DLA is too easy to get was set out to the House again by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng). He claimed that most people get DLA by filling in a form, which is all they have to do, but that is simply not the case. Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions from 2010 state that 16% of decisions are made without “additional” information, other than the form, but that does not mean that medical information is not provided because people send it with the form. Some 36% of decisions are made on the basis of further non-medical information—remember that there may already be medical information—such as phoning the claimant to get more information or speaking to a carer, and 48% of decisions
	are made on the basis of further medical information or assessment. Worryingly, in a press release from as recently as June this year, the DWP again repeated that more than half of claims are made without any medical information. It is not helpful to keep repeating things that are not accurate.
	The other accusation about DLA was that claims are never looked at again, and the June press release stated that 71% of current recipients “get” indefinite rewards. The tense is important because if we read “get”, we presume that something is still ongoing. In fact, in 2010, 77% of new claims were for fixed periods, and 23% were indefinite. The figure in the press release goes back to 1992, when many more indefinite claims were granted. Things have already changed. If we start making policy on the basis of false premises, and create a straw man—as the Government constantly do to justify what they are doing—the chances are that we will get things wrong.
	One group of people who are very badly affected by these changes are those in the 45 to 65 age group. If they fall ill, they lose income from their job. For many couples, that means a halving of their income, and of course they will have higher costs for such things as heating. Many lose employment and support allowance after a year if they are in the work-related activity group, often because they have a partner’s earnings, even if that partner works only part time; savings towards their retirement, which they will now have to use up before they ever get to retirement age; or an early retirement pension. Given the forthcoming increase in pension age, people will be in that limbo for a lot longer. The people who have tried to help themselves are being hit particularly hard.
	The same group may be among those who do not receive the personal independence payment. Some 66% of those on the lowest rate of DLA are aged over 45, so they are likely to be the most affected. That is also the age at which illness and disability are most likely to occur. If they are tenants, they are also likely to be affected by the bedroom tax. Those are important issues for that group.
	Ministers constantly tell us, “Well, we’re not doing a cumulative impact assessment because the previous Government did not do one.” However, it is this Government who boast about carrying out a comprehensive and revolutionary reshaping of the welfare system. If they do not do a cumulative impact assessment when they are doing that, when would they? It is important that that is carried out properly so that we can see what is going on and make the necessary adjustments rather than simply say it will be all right on the night.

Anne McGuire: First, I thank all the Members who have contributed to today’s Opposition day debate. I particularly thank my colleagues who have spoken. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) highlighted yet again some of the difficulties related to the work capability assessment and Atos, as he consistently has for many months. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), a former shadow spokesperson on disability issues. He bears the scars of trying to get the first Disability Discrimination Act through the House in the teeth of many years of consistent opposition from the
	then Government. He stands well regarded among many disabled people for the challenges that he took up on their behalf.
	I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) and for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore).
	I have highlighted my right hon. and hon. Friends’ contributions, and once again we have seen a certain level of inactivity and disregard among Government Members for debates on disability issues. Three Members have spoken from the Government Benches, and I will come to their comments, but those of us who have attended these debates over the past year or so will recognise that today’s poor turnout and low number of contributions from Government Members is not unusual. That is either because of inactivity, or because they just could not care, or—maybe I will be generous—because they are so embarrassed that they cannot come and defend their own Government’s policies in this Chamber or Westminster Hall.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), will know that this is not the first time that Members have asked for a cumulative impact assessment on how Government changes are affecting disabled people. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment, secured a debate on the matter in December.
	We have found out one or two interesting facts today. We now have a Minister of State, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), who refuses to meet Members of Parliament unless he has set down the conditions beforehand. Frankly, that is pretty unheard of. I have never come across a Minister who wants the terms of reference—the “positive arguments”, as he put it—before he engages in a discussion. Surely a Minister who is advocating a policy should be prepared to discuss it with Members and representatives of their constituents in private conversation. [Interruption.] No, I say to the Minister that if he wants to be seen as a good, listening Minister, he needs to change his style and start to meet Members of Parliament.
	We have heard from colleagues from all over the country. The debate was prompted by—

Jane Ellison: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Anne McGuire: No, the hon. Lady has not been in the Chamber all day. [Interruption.] She has been attending a Select Committee. Forgive me, but I still will not take her intervention. The hon. Lady was not here when the Minister made his comment—

Jane Ellison: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Anne McGuire: I will not be sidetracked.
	We have seen the number of people who signed Pat’s petition and the WOW petition. The Government’s response to the WOW petition—that they are limited in what cumulative analysis they are able to undertake because of the complexity of the modelling required—is
	revealing. There are organisations with limited resources that can put together a reasonable cumulative impact assessment. The Minister of State and the Under-Secretary with responsibility for the disabled have a range of experts they can bring to the fore to put together a cumulative impact assessment. Frankly, some of the excuses we have heard today give us an indication of why they do not want to do that.
	I hope I am wrong, but the Under-Secretary will no doubt give us two justifications: that Labour did not undertake an assessment; and that it is impossible to do it. The previous Labour Government did not do it because they did not—no previous Government have—put together a torrent of changes that will impact on the lives of disabled people. [Interruption.] If the Minister of State is so clear that they are positive changes, why is he running away from a cumulative impact assessment? He undermined the Government case on the impossibility of doing an assessment when he answered my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). He said that cumulative impacts are a coalition initiative. Where is the initiative? If he is parading on 4 July that it is a coalition initiative, what has happened to it between 4 July and 9 July? Where has it gone? It has disappeared into the ether like some of his words this afternoon.
	What we have heard today is the torrent of change, from the bedroom tax that will not provide an extra bedroom to accommodate equipment a disabled child might need, the families of disabled children who will be £1,300 per year less well off than they were under the old system, to the changes in ESA and the abolition of DLA, with no recognition that even those who are not “the most severely disabled”—the words the Minister will always use—still have additional costs because of their disability.
	The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said that he was angry. I was sorely disappointed by his contribution, because he attempted to paint the people who want to talk about a cumulative impact assessment as extremists. I hope he is not saying that Disability Rights UK, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Mind, Scope, Leonard Cheshire Disability and Carers UK among others, including tens of thousands of people who signed Pat’s petition, are extremists.

Paul Maynard: Will the right hon. Lady answer the question her colleague could not answer earlier? Does she believe it is extreme to try to close every special school and every day care centre? Does she not regard that as being extreme?

Anne McGuire: With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman attempted to put everybody who has asked for a cumulative impact assessment into an extremist box. If he wants to debate exclusive and mainstream education, I suggest we have a debate on that. There are differing opinions, but disagreeing with him does not make someone an extremist. [Interruption.] I make an exception for the Secretary of State; there’s an extremist, on certain issues, if ever there was one! I ask him, is the Children’s Commissioner, who released a report only last month, an extremist? She said that
	“families with disabled children are hit harder by the cuts under all disability definitions”.
	It is not extremists saying this; it is not even just Opposition Members—a whole swathe of people are saying it.
	This is not just about welfare benefits, and on that I almost agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys: this is not about putting disabled people into a benefits box. I agree that the social model is the right model for disability, but we cannot have a social model if people do not know whether they can have a spare bedroom for their wheelchair or if they do not have enough food on the table because money is being taken from them. [Interruption.] I do not know if the Secretary of State is contributing to the debate or just chuntering from the Front Bench. The DWP press office did not do Ministers any credit when it said:
	“There’s a lot of alarmist stories about our welfare reforms but the truth is this Government is absolutely committed to supporting disabled people”.
	It might look like that from the top of Caxton house, but it does not feel like it in the real world, as some of the testimonies we have heard today verify.
	This country has signed up to and ratified the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which I was delighted my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth raised. Is the Minister truly confident that such an onslaught against disabled people is consistent with our responsibilities under the convention, particularly article 19?
	I wish to make a genuine offer to the Government that does not ask for anything more than we would expect from any Government: a true and accurate assessment of what their policies mean for the people they govern. We are not asking for coalition Members to vote against any major policy—although I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) say he had strong reservations about certain aspects of the policy—and we are not even asking the Minister or her colleagues to overturn any decisions they have made; we are asking why, if Ministers and coalition Members are so confident that their policies across benefits, social care, access to legal aid and independent living are right, the Government do not do what they should have done months ago and make use of the fantastic policy and analytical capacity in the DWP and the civil service. If it does nothing else, it might help the Prime Minister, who gave a wrong answer this afternoon over the impact of the overnight exemption from the bedroom tax on the families of disabled children. It might help him to understand his own policies.

Esther McVey: I welcome this opportunity to put fact where there has been confusion and information where there has been misinformation from the Opposition; to explain the context of the welfare reforms, the vision and the collaborative work done with disabled people and their organisations; to reply to the points, one by one, that I have heard today; and to explain why the cumulative impact assessment is neither possible nor the correct approach, because doing one would provide inaccurate information—something, surely, that no one in the House would want to support.
	To be clear, the Government’s overarching ambition is to enable disabled people to fulfil their ambition to be full and equal members of society. That is what we aim to do, so I am pleased to inform the House that, despite what we have heard today, under this Government, disabled people are already experiencing improved outcomes and reduced inequalities as against non-disabled people. Data published last week show that since 2009-10 disabled people have seen improved achievements at degree and GCSE levels and improved employment rates, and there is a reduced proportion of disabled people in relative income poverty. Inequality has also been reduced in a number of areas. The gap in outcomes compared with non-disabled people has narrowed for GCSE achievements, employment rates, income poverty for families with someone who is disabled, and in reported choice and control over people’s lives—something I would have thought the House would welcome.

Liam Byrne: rose—

Esther McVey: One thing I am sure we can all agree on is the complexity of disability and the very different life experiences that everyone lives through, so let me talk about the range of people we are dealing with: from people like Stephen Hawking, who has a brain the size of the planet but is very physically disabled, to people who are mentally severely disabled but physically very able, and everybody else in between—from fluctuating to sensory to cognitive. We have to support each one of those. We have to find individual, tailor-made support for each of those people and provide it in an holistic approach, and that is what we are doing, bringing together social care, health, education and all the benefits. What I will say, before—

Liam Byrne: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Lady is not for giving way. It is up to her whether she wishes to give way, and I think she has signalled often enough.

Esther McVey: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I have been left with limited time and have many answers to give, I will not be giving way to the right hon. Gentleman, but I will raise some of his points. I would like to point out—he overlooked this—that we spend £50 billion a year on support and benefits for disabled people. That is a fifth higher than the average in Europe, double the rate in America spends and six times that in Japan.
	The right hon. Gentleman made an unusual speech today, talking about his new single personal budget. As per normal, we heard no details whatever. How would it be funded? Would it be means-tested? Would he abolish PIP? The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was asked whether he would reverse the spare rooms subsidy—something he said he would not be doing—but obviously the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) thinks he is above his own leader. He is changing his policy on the hoof.

Liam Byrne: rose—

Esther McVey: I have said that I will not be giving way to the right hon. Gentleman, because he spoke rubbish for hours. We will go to—[Interruption.] Crikey! Temper, temper!
	The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) asked various questions about the work capability assessment and Atos. I really do not get how Labour Members can forget that they introduced it in 2008 or that they gave the contract to Atos until 2015.

Anne McGuire: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We will have one Member stood at the Dispatch Box, not two.

Esther McVey: I have got nearly two hours of questions to answer, so I will keep going.
	The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) talked about the Remploy figures in Stoke. I can tell him that 110 people left the factory and that 82 engaged with the extra support we were giving. Of those, 30 are now in work and 36 are on Work Choice.
	The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) talked about housing and the spare room subsidy. It is quite incredible that people are not looking at the complexities, at how social housing was not built, but collapsed under the previous Government—we are now building it—or at how the stock is used properly. One thing nobody talked about is the fact that among those on the waiting lists—the 1.8 million—are children who are disabled. There are people on those lists who are disabled. We are looking after those people too.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) talked about—

Tom Greatrex: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you could provide me with some guidance. The Minister is obviously choosing not to give way to those on the Opposition Front Bench, but is it appropriate or courteous for her to refuse to give way when she is referring to a point that I have raised in the debate?

Lindsay Hoyle: That is not a point of order. It is in the hands of the Minister whether she wishes to give way or not.

Esther McVey: My time appears to have been squeezed, but I am giving the House the facts and the reality of the situation. I have very little time to do that.
	When the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) talked about a cumulative impact assessment, and about the “Destination Unknown” report, did he know—perhaps he did not—that the report was based on just six households and that it ran to over 100 pages? The people who have talked about cumulative impact assessments today do not realise that they are not based on the complexities of the issue or that the benefits will not have been rolled out until 2017. We cannot stop part-way. It is a dynamic benefit, so none of that is possible.
	The Opposition do not seem to understand that, as we cannot do a cumulative impact assessment in the way that they suggest, we have to look at the vision and at what we are trying to create and ask how we are going to get it right. There are key things that we do with that. We have slowed down the process hugely to ensure that we monitor it and look at the progression and at the roll-out, and should anything along the way not be in
	line with our overall vision, we would stop and alter it. We have done that throughout. That is what we do when we cannot do a cumulative impact assessment. I do not give out misinformation; we get it right. We will also have independent reviews in 2014 to ensure that we are getting it right. Many of the changes, particularly those involving PIP and DLA, will not involve looking at those on indefinite awards until October 2015, after all the analysis has been done.
	I am amazed that the Opposition ruggedly pursue something, knowing that they could not do it. As the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) said, Labour never did this. There was a reason for that, but we have found a way round it, which is to analyse the process as we go along. We are implementing very small roll-outs in order to get this right.
	I smiled when I heard Citizens Advice being quoted frequently today. Is that the same Citizens Advice that hired Polly Billington, a Labour adviser, in November 2012? She will be head of its campaigns and communications, and is a former senior adviser to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North. Is that why we have to have those definitive quotes all the time? I find it so. Maybe that is why the Opposition are now smiling.
	I also want to make reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who spoke passionately about everyone fulfilling their potential. That is key to what we are doing. Our latest document, called “Making it Happen” came out on 2 July, and it was produced in collaboration with disabled people and their organisations. This is about supporting them and finding out what their needs, their aspirations, their desires are, and finding out what they want to do and how they want to be portrayed. They have the same dreams as every one of us—yes, they want a job; yes, they want to get married; and yes, they want a family life—and we are supporting them in that.
	That is what universal credit is all about. It is about helping people to get into work, to do as little or as much as they can do. It is about giving them extra support, and about tailored allowances. It is also about a tapered relief, which is something that the Labour Government never introduced. Under them, the system was very statist, with people being told, “You must do 16 hours”, and a 98% tax rate sometimes being applied. We are not doing that.
	It is taking a long time to get this right, but it is the right thing to do and I am very proud indeed of what we are doing—

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
	Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 227, Noes 296.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 293, Noes 226.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	The Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the Government’s leadership in furthering the rights of disabled people; recognises the UK as a world leader in disability rights; notes that approximately £50 billion a year is spent on services for disabled people, including adult social services and including an investment of £3.8 billion in health and social care services in England to deliver more joined-up services to disabled people; further notes the £350 million allocated by the Government for programmes and support for disabled people to move into and stay in work; and acknowledges the Government’s collective determination to build upon the London 2012 Paralympic Games, and create a legacy which shines a light on the abilities and achievements of disabled people.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

James Brokenshire: I beg to move,
	That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 8 July, be approved.
	The Government are determined to do all they can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We propose, through the order, to add both Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati wal-Jihad, more widely known as Boko Haram, and Minbar Ansar Deen, also known as Ansar al-Sharia UK, to the list of international terrorist organisations, amending schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 12th proscription order under that Act.
	Schedule 3 of the Act provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes that it is currently “concerned in terrorism”. The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, including the unlawful glorification of terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, the Home Secretary may exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation, having taken into account a number of factors. Those factors are: the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.
	Given the wide ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available relevant information and evidence on the organisation. This includes open source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across Government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. These decisions are taken with great care by the Home Secretary and it is right that the case for proscribing new organisations must be approved by both Houses.

Mike Freer: Can the Minister tell me, as someone who has been on the sharp end of attack by Muslims Against Crusades, whether having organisations out in the open where they can be monitored is preferable to proscribing organisations, which makes it harder to monitor them?

James Brokenshire: I note my hon. Friend’s comment. Clearly, his own experience was very shocking and I well understand why he would wish to intercede in the debate to make that point clearly. Proscription can be an important mechanism to disrupt activity. We therefore believe that it is an appropriate mechanism to send a strong message that terrorist organisations are not tolerated in the UK and to act as a deterrent to their operating here. It also means that an organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate.
	It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to a proscribed organisation, invite support for a proscribed organisation, arrange a meeting in support of that organisation, or wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that they may be a member or supporter of such an organisation. We believe that proscription is a powerful mechanism to disrupt and take firm action against terrorist groups, which is why 49 international and 14 Northern Irish terrorist organisations are currently proscribed.
	On the specific groups before the House this evening, having carefully considered all the evidence we firmly believe that both organisations, Boko Haram and Minbar Ansar Deen, are currently concerned in terrorism. Right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, but I can provide a brief summary of each group.
	Boko Haram is a prolific terrorist organisation based in Nigeria whose ultimate goal is to establish the Islamic caliphate. Seeking to undermine democratic government through its campaign of violence and attacks, it has targeted all sections of Nigerian society—Muslims, Christians, rich, poor, civilians and members of the security forces alike—as well as members of the international community. For example, an attack near Abuja on Christmas day 2011 that killed at least 26 people, and an attack on a bus station in Kano City in March 2013 that killed over 60, were both attributed to the organisation. The organisation has also sought to attack international targets in Nigeria. In August 2011, it claimed responsibility for a suicide attack against the UN building in Abuja that killed 26. It has also targeted westerners for kidnapping in the past few years.
	I stress to the House that the Government are aware of the concerns over the approach used by the Nigerian Government to defeat Boko Haram. While the UK Government continue to work with Nigeria to fight terrorism, we make it clear that human rights must be respected at all times in our work to defeat terrorism across the globe.

Richard Fuller: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning some of the disgusting attacks by Boko Haram in Nigeria. We live in an interconnected world and I am sure that the Government of Nigeria will be pleased at the action being taken by the British Government today. Has my hon. Friend had any conversations with the Nigerian Government with respect to the motion before the House?

James Brokenshire: What I can say to my hon. Friend is that Boko Haram has carried out indiscriminate, mass-casualty attacks, and clearly we are conscious of all the events I have outlined. We believe that proscribing that organisation shows our condemnation of its activities very clearly and will prevent it operating in the UK and give the police powers to tackle any UK-based support for it, so proscription is an important step. I cannot comment on specific discussions we have had with the Nigerian Government, but clearly those continue. I stress the point I made earlier about condemning any human rights abuses in that regard. I think it is important to state that in this context.
	The second group we are proscribing is Minbar Ansar Deen, a Salafist group based in the UK that promotes and encourages terrorism. It distributes material through
	its online forum, which promotes terrorism by encouraging individuals to travel overseas to engage in extremist activity, specifically fighting. The group is not related to Ansar al-Sharia groups in other countries. Proscribing it sends a clear message that we condemn its terrorism activities.
	Decisions on when and whether to proscribe an organisation are taken only following extensive consideration and in the light of emerging intelligence. It is important that decisions are built on a robust evidence base, do not adversely impact on any ongoing investigations and support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. It of course would not be appropriate for us to discuss specific intelligence that leads to any decisions to proscribe, but clearly we keep the whole area under constant focus.

Keith Vaz: I am sure that the House will support what the Minister is proposing, so he must not take anything I say as criticism of the Government’s decision. He will know that whenever the matter has come before the House I have raised the necessity of a time limit on some of these orders and, in particular, the report by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC. The Minister told the House almost exactly a year ago, on 4 July 2012, that the Government’s response would be published in due course. The Immigration Minister said on 22 November 2012 that it would be published shortly. When will it be published?

James Brokenshire: I know that this is an issue that the right hon. Gentleman has pursued through the Home Affairs Committee and through interventions in debates of this kind. I can tell him clearly that we have noted carefully the comments in David Anderson’s report about the de-proscription process and that we responded to the report in March. In that context, under the current regime any person affected by a proscription can submit an application to the Home Secretary requesting that she consider whether the organisation should be de-proscribed. The Home Secretary has received no de-proscription applications, and I understand that none was received by her predecessor since 2009. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that officials continue to explore options for improving the de-proscription process. That is under active consideration and we will inform Parliament of any resulting changes to the regime. Our current thinking is that there are ways in which the existing regime for de-proscription can be used effectively. We will report back to the House shortly, and I genuinely mean that—the right hon. Gentleman smiles. I assure him that this is under active consideration. There are issues that need to be worked through carefully, and we will report back to the House at the earliest opportunity. I say to him genuinely, the matter is being considered carefully and actively in the light of David Anderson’s recommendations in his report, and in looking more generally at the proscription regime, as well as de-proscription within it.

Keith Vaz: I am sorry to do this, because I like the Minister, but he has said absolutely nothing that he did not say a year ago. It is important to distinguish between the process, which we all know about, and the issue that David Anderson has raised about time-limiting orders. The Minister has used the words “under active
	consideration” and said that officials are doing this or that. That is all very well, but ultimately Ministers have to make a decision. Either they are in favour of a time limit or the order will be endless, subject to somebody’s application. We need to know precisely at some stage—not today, obviously.

James Brokenshire: As I said, we responded to David Anderson’s report in March. I understand that this matter is of concern to right hon. and hon. Members, and we are therefore examining how the existing de-proscription process can be used more effectively.
	I hope that, following my comments, the House will be minded to support the proscription of both groups and support the Government’s focus and clear intent to combat terrorism in this country.

Diana Johnson: I thank the Minister for his comments and for the letter dated 8 July from the Home Secretary to the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), setting out the Government’s proposals.
	There has long been a tradition of cross-party co-operation wherever possible on issues of national security, and we are pleased to continue this by supporting the Government’s order today. As the Minister said, under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 a group can be proscribed if the Home Secretary is persuaded that it
	“(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
	(b) prepares for terrorism,
	(c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or
	(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”
	I appreciate that the Minister is restricted in what he can say about the evidence that the Home Secretary possesses about these groups. I thank him for the information that he has provided so far. On that basis, the Opposition are happy to support the order.
	The Opposition are particularly pleased to support the proscription of Boko Haram. The evidence against this group is overwhelming. As the Minister said, it is responsible for several large-scale terrorist attacks, including those in Abuja and Kano, which claimed dozens of lives. It is right that the United Kingdom does everything it can to support the international efforts to combat this group. However, why has the Minister not taken action against Boko Haram earlier? In November last year, the Home Secretary laid an order to proscribe the group, Ansaru, which was debated in this House on 21 November. At that time, Ansaru had been identified as an organisation independent of Boko Haram for only 11 months, and Boko Haram had been directly implicated in several attacks at that time. In the House, I highlighted the strong links between Boko Haram and Ansaru, and asked why the Government were banning one and not the other. I am very pleased that the Government are now acting, but I would like the Minister to explain the delay. The Opposition are also happy to support the proscription of Ansar-al-Sharia on the basis that it is promoting or encouraging terrorism and therefore falls under section 3.
	While we are looking at groups which promote or encourage terrorism, may I ask the Minister about Hizb ut-Tahrir? As he will be aware, over the past five years
	the status of Hizb ut-Tahrir has been of considerable interest in this House. In 2007, the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, repeatedly called for the group to be banned. In Prime Minister’s questions, he told the House:
	“That organisation says that Jews should be killed wherever they are found. What more evidence do we need before we ban that organisation? It is poisoning the minds of young people.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 952.]
	He was very clear then that he wanted the group banned, but at that time an assessment found that Hizb ut-Tahrir was not involved in terrorist activity in the United Kingdom. Since then, however, the situation has developed further. The 2011 review of the Prevent strategy identified Hizb ut-Tahrir as one of the groups targeting universities and attempting to radicalise students. Last week the Minister stated in a parliamentary written answer to me that the Government
	“believe there is unambiguous evidence to indicate that some extremist organisations, including Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT), target specific universities and colleges…with the objective of influencing and recruiting students to support their agenda.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2013; Vol. 565, c. 786W.]
	The horrific killing of Drummer Lee Rigby shows the danger of home-grown extremism originating from UK universities. In light of that horrific event, it is appropriate that we now review all the measures we have put in place to tackle extremism on UK campuses and look afresh at what can be done to tackle those organisations that seek to recruit students to such causes.

Keith Vaz: I remember the very day that the Prime Minister spoke on this subject and I share my hon. Friend’s concern that this organisation has been involved in these activities. Does she agree that it is odd that the Prime Minister believes it should be proscribed, yet it has still not been proscribed?

Diana Johnson: The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee makes a very good point. The Prime Minister spoke with passion and conviction about the issue in 2007 when he was Leader of the Opposition and I am surprised that, three years into this Government, the organisation has not been dealt with in the way he indicated it would be.
	In the light of my comments and the reflections of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, I urge the Minister to look again at, and to carry out an urgent review of, the status of Hizb ut-Tahrir, with a view to introducing an order to proscribe it. The Opposition would be very happy to co-operate with that course of action.
	Finally, I want to return to two technical issues relating to proscription, both of which have been raised in this House on many occasions by my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, and to the recommendations of the independent reviewer of terrorism, David Anderson QC, with regard to proscription.
	My first point is about the independent reviewer’s recommendation for a time limit on proscription and my second is about de-proscription. As I understand it, the only group to be de-proscribed achieved it by judicial review. The Minister has said that no applications have
	been made to the Home Secretary, but will he explain why there was a judicial review? It may have happened several years ago. May I also press the Minister on his assurance that we will receive a response at the earliest opportunity, to use his words? Given that time is pressing and Parliament will enter recess next week, is the Minister able to assure us that we will receive a response from the Home Office on this very important issue by the end of the year? It would be helpful to know that, rather than have to wait for a further order.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should point out to the House that on page 7 of today’s Order Paper the note to the item on the prevention and suppression of terrorism—a note with which I am sure all hon. Members are entirely familiar—correctly stated at the time of publication:
	“The instrument has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.”
	I thought it proper further to advise the House that although that was true at the time of the publication of the Order Paper the instrument has since been considered today by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments under the august chairmanship of the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie). No technical observations on the instrument have been made. I think that the House will feel that it is greatly to the credit of the Joint Committee that it has worked so expeditiously. We shall now proceed and I call Mr Patrick Mercer.

Patrick Mercer: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), and to hear the comments of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), under whom I served with great pleasure a few years ago.
	No one in the House will have failed to be completely horrified by the death of Drummer Rigby a few weeks ago, in a manner that was not only bestial, but designed to shock and grab national and international headlines with the minimum amount of resource from our opponents. I fear we will see more of that. If all it takes is a sharp knife and a little twisted courage—if that is the right phrase—to carry out acts that hold international attention for several days, if not weeks, we must be prepared.
	Over the years I have referred to how surprised the House, and indeed the nation, is when such an act occurs. We need only to remind ourselves that just such an act was planned three or four years ago against a Muslim soldier who had been serving in Afghanistan.

Keith Vaz: indicated assent.

Patrick Mercer: I see the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee nodding; he and I discussed the issue at the time. That soldier was a Muslim, and on completion of his tour of duty in Afghanistan our enemies planned exactly the same sort of bestial—I use the word again—act. It is incumbent on us not to be surprised. Of course we will be horrified, but we should not be surprised. We must understand that this is about the most ghastly acts, particularly when combined with, I fear, the extraordinarily attention-grabbing technique of allowing individuals to carry out “suicide by cop”—I think that
	is the American phrase—by hanging around afterwards for more violence to be perpetrated and for their message to be broadcast even wider.
	We have been warned. We know what attacks will be like in the future and how a small number of contorted and evil individuals can grab international headlines. That, of course, is what terrorism is about. It is not necessarily about killing or defeating; it is about terrorising, which is exactly what the very sad death of Drummer Rigby achieved for our opponents.
	I commend the points the Government have made about Boko Haram, and the Opposition were correct to say that the group needs to be banned—we have perhaps been a little tardy about it in the past. If I may, I caution Opposition Members in their words of criticism for the Prime Minister over Hizb ut-Tahrir. The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee will remember that we debated that issue three or four years ago, and the then Leader of the Opposition made a precise point to the then Prime Minister about Hizb ut-Tahrir. However, with greatest respect to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, it is not as simple as that.

Diana Johnson: I was making the point that we are now several years on, circumstances have changed, and the Prevent strategy review identified that Hizb ut-Tahrir is operating in universities. That is a concern and ought to be looked at again.

Patrick Mercer: I entirely take the hon. Lady’s point, and my comments are not meant to be inimical. The fact remains, however, that there are sometimes clear legal reasons why it is difficult to pin down such organisations. The previous Prime Minister found exactly the same situation, and there are legal reasons why it is difficult to achieve. There are also good intelligence reasons why it is sometimes necessary—or advised—to be less robust with such organisations than might otherwise be the temptation. Simply put, if Hizb ut-Tahrir were to be banned, as appears likely at the moment, it would soon spring up as “son of” or “bride of” or “ghost of” Hizb ut-Tahrir, under a different name with a different faction and a different flag. We need to be cautious in how we criticise one another’s attitudes towards these things.
	We have talked about home-grown terrorism and the sad death of Drummer Rigby, but what interests me most is that, unless my ears were distracted, I do not think anybody has talked about the home-grown terrorism that we have been facing for the past several hundred years, which is republican terrorism. If I, in my ill-informed state, were to be asked which organisation posed the greatest—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the reason why the House has not been discussing Irish terrorism is that it is not referenced in the order? I know that that is a point at which, intuitively, he would speedily have arrived in any case.

Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful, Mr Speaker. I do think that if we are talking about home-grown terrorism, we should not neglect the lessons that we have learned over the past several hundred years in facing that particular form of terrorism.
	I return for a moment to the thorny issue of detention without trial. There will be temptations for the Minister to change the detention period as there are different pressures and as the different forms of terrorism to which we are subject become more and more frequent. I ask him not to give way to the temptation to do so needlessly, pointlessly and damagingly, as the previous Government did. My view is that the period is currently far too long. I ask him to understand that we combated the Irish Republican Army and Irish terrorism, or republican terrorism as I should probably call it more accurately, with a much shorter period of detention without trial. I speak from personal experience, although I entirely take the point that Mr Speaker has just made, Madam Deputy Speaker. We combated that terrorism within the law and with the principle and understanding that a man or woman is innocent until proved guilty. We did so on the basis that those who opposed us were criminals, not freedom fighters or misguided soldiers.
	In this short speech, I wish to ask the Minister, if the temptation to increase the detention period arises again, to be fully cognisant of the fact that any period for which we take away a man or woman’s liberty, particularly when faced with the extraordinary difficulties and sensitivities of terrorism, means that we unintentionally add to, aid and abet terrorists’ cause. In the same way, the death of Drummer Rigby—the death of simply one man, desperately sad though it was—has drawn attention to that cause. If we make an issue of the matter again and try to turn our liberties on their head by adding to simple criminal law in the case of terrorists, we will aid and abet their cause.
	I will cease on that point, but I simply say that we must not forget the lessons of the past. We must understand where terrorism will lie in the future, and the House must never be surprised by the depravity and bestiality to which these people can stoop.

Keith Vaz: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who served with great distinction on the Home Affairs Committee for five years during the last Parliament. He is regarded as the House’s expert on security matters, and when he was on the Committee he was able to bring his expertise and knowledge to a number of inquiries and reports. He is an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament, and it has been a pleasure to hear from him on this important matter.
	The whole House will support the Minister in his order. That was made clear by the shadow Minister for security, and I doubt very much that anyone who speaks in this debate will disagree with the Minister. Having served in the House for a number of years and attended debates on a number of such orders, I can say that it is clear that when Ministers with the security portfolio come before the House to make a statement—some of it based on intelligence that cannot be shared with the House—the House always defers to them and accepts what they say. That is even more important when Members can consider the order, look at the organisations and support what is being done.
	I want to raise a few points on how proscription affects groups and how we can improve such orders. I fully support the decision on Boko Haram and Minbar
	Ansar Deen/Ansar al-Sharia, two groups that ought to be proscribed. As we heard from the shadow Minister, one is predominantly active in Nigeria, but with people in this country who support what is going on in Nigeria, north Cameroon and Niger. The other has been involved in all kinds of activities, particularly in Libya, but also in other countries that promote terrorism. In the United Kingdom, it promotes terrorism by distributing content through a forum and its website activities. It regularly advertises its involvement in these matters.
	Before I turn to my specific points, I want to pay tribute to our security services for the incredible work they do on a daily basis. They work hard to keep the people of this country safe and sometimes we forget to thank them. We only thank them after there has been a great tragedy, such as the one alluded to by the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer): the murder of Lee Rigby. Day in, day out, they work extremely hard, necessarily in the shadows, and we need to thank them for what they do.
	My worry about proscription orders, especially in respect of new groups, is how the heads of those groups can be chopped off, and, amoeba-like, they can form themselves into different organisations with different names. For example, the Home Secretary proscribed Muslims Against Crusades in November 2011 on the grounds that it was simply a new name for an organisation that was already proscribed. However, as we know from other proscription orders, it is possible for Boko Haram and Ansar al-Sharia, or the people behind them, to suddenly create themselves into new organisations with new names. One example is the case of Mr Anjem Choudary, who has created numerous new organisations after his organisation was proscribed by the Home Secretary: Islam4UK, the Call to Submission, Islamic Path, the London School of Sharia and the Saved Sect, all of which have been banned. The latest is called the Islamic Emergency Defence—the IED.
	When the Minister comes to reply, I want assurances that when these two groups and the people behind them form themselves into other organisations, the Government will be ready to proscribe them. This is a difficult area that requires huge expertise from the security services. It is fine for the House to proscribe, but it is a problem if groups create themselves into other organisations.
	As we have heard from the shadow Minister, I am concerned, and the Prime Minister is concerned, that Hizb ut-Tahrir is still not the subject of proscription. I thought that the hon. Member for Newark was a little unfair to describe the shadow Minister’s comments as a criticism of the Prime Minister. I know how highly my hon. Friend regards the Prime Minister, and on this issue we believe he is absolutely right: this organisation ought to have been proscribed. This was a criticism not of the Prime Minister, but of the system. The Prime Minister believes, as he did in opposition, that something should be done, but somehow the system does not allow it to happen. That is still a mystery to me, but I live in hope that come 2015 and the next election, the organisation will have been banned.

Patrick Mercer: I hear everything the right hon. Gentleman says, but I think he would agree that there
	are extraordinary circumstances when what appears to be a clear-cut case on the surface is, for intelligence purposes, rather different.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but I do not think the Prime Minister would have used the words he did unless he was being very careful, and he certainly would have retracted them after he became Prime Minister had he received more information indicating a problem.
	We shall leave that to one side, however, as it is not the subject of the order. I am sure the Prime Minister and everyone else is fully behind the proscription of these two organisations. I was disappointed with the Minister’s response to my intervention. He is an accomplished performer at the Dispatch Box and before the Home Affairs Committee—we will be calling him again for our inquiry into international terrorism and crime—but he did not give us any answers today or take us any further on from what he told us on 4 July 2012. That was the last time such an order was put through the House.
	The hon. Member for Newark—I was about to call him the Minister for Newark; of course, he ought to have been security Minister at some stage, given his knowledge of the subject, but there is still time, with two years to go—the shadow Minister and I are not suggesting it in this case, but when we proscribe, we ought to put in place a time limit for reviewing the order, not because we would want to de-proscribe as soon as we proscribe, but because it would be right to keep reviewing these organisations, just in case they turn out to be shell organisations. I have mentioned the Tamil Tigers on the two most recent occasions that we have discussed this, although the Minister was not here last time—the Immigration Minister stood in for him. The Tamil Tigers have ceased to exist—everyone in the organisation has ceased to exist—yet they are still proscribed in the United Kingdom.
	The Minister invites us to make an application for de-proscription for which there is no timetable. That means, I am afraid, that the matter ends up not in this House, which is responsible for proscription, but in the courts, where organisations are able to spend a lot of money. I think of the People’s Mujahedeen. Like me, Madam Deputy Speaker, you were in the House when that happened, on the Government Benches. A Minister came before the House and said, “We are de-proscribing the People’s Mujahedeen, because they’ve gone to court and won their judicial review.” I do not want these two organisations to do the same thing, which was why I said that the Minister’s answers were unsatisfactory.
	The Minister told us one year ago, on 4 July 2012, that there would be a response “in due course”. I have discovered that that is one of the Minister’s favourite sayings—I am going to look in Hansard at how many times he says it; but he was a distinguished lawyer before he came to the House, and “in due course” is something that lawyers tend to say in their arguments. On 22 November 2012, however, the Immigration Minister, who is not a lawyer, used the word “shortly” in the House. “Shortly” clearly means “not next week”, because the response came in March this year.
	Indeed, the word “response” also needs to be looked at, because although the Minister said that there had been a response—you were not in the Chair at the time,
	Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not draw you into this debate—the Government’s response was to say that the report by the independent reviewer of terrorism, David Anderson, QC, had been “noted”. That is a very odd response from the Government. We are used to them saying, “A Select Committee”—or an independent reviewer—“has made a recommendation, and this is what we think about the subject.” This poor chap went through the preparation of that entire report and then waited a whole year to be told that it had been “noted”. Now we hear from the Minister, in his response to me, that he is going to respond—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I am afraid I have forgotten what he said—it was not “in due course” or “shortly”—and I do not have access to
	Hansard
	, so when he winds up, perhaps he can remind me what he said he would do.
	When we proscribe, we need to be careful that we do not get organisations that can then de-proscribe. There is no point having someone as distinguished as David Anderson, QC, producing reports—poring over all the detail and providing expertise to the Government—and then the Government not responding. All I say to the Minister is this. He has told us that officials are looking into the matter. Well, hooray for officials—distinguished officials, I am sure. He has told us that they are “actively” considering the matter. What does that mean? Since I last raised the matter in the House on 4 July 2012, have officials “inactively” considered it? We have had activity and officials; what we now have are Ministers—good Ministers, such as the security Minister. He is on top of the brief—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has been going round this point for nearly five minutes now. Will he please clearly make his point? Then perhaps we can hear what the Minister has to say for himself.

Keith Vaz: I will certainly draw my remarks to a close. I am trying to get the message across, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Dawn Primarolo: Well, you’ve done that.

Keith Vaz: I am delighted that I have got the message across to you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I hope I have got the message across to the Minister, too. We look forward to hearing his response.

James Brokenshire: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate, which has been well informed and well focused on the tasks at hand and the specifics of the order before the House.
	Let me comment at the outset on the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) about the appalling murder in Woolwich of Drummer Lee Rigby. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will join me in saying that all our thoughts and prayers are with the family in their preparation for Drummer Rigby’s funeral in just a few days’ time. Can I also echo—[Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Will the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) move away from the Front Bench? Only the Minister is supposed to be standing there, no other Member.

James Brokenshire: I echo the comments of the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs about the work of the Security Service, as well as the police involved in counter-terrorism work and, indeed, all officials engaged in keeping our country safe. That includes activities overseas, as well as in the United Kingdom. I wholly endorse his comments about how so much of that work necessarily has to be done out of sight. In my role as security Minister, I have the genuine privilege to have some insight into that work and to see the professionalism, focus and drive that those people have in seeking to keep all of us safe. I entirely endorse the comments that the right hon. Gentleman made in that connection.
	Let me deal with a number of the points that were flagged up. On Boko Haram, we have regular dialogue with the Government of Nigeria on a broad range of mutual terrorism concerns. The Nigerians have proscribed Boko Haram and are aware of our intention to do so.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked about the timing of the order being laid before the House tonight. The decisions on whether to proscribe a particular organisation are taken after careful consideration and in the light of emerging intelligence. It is important that such decisions should be built on a robust evidence base and that they should support other members of the international community in their fight against terrorism. It would be inappropriate for me to discuss specific intelligence matters, but I can assure her that these issues are carefully considered in this context, and in the context of our broader support for others around the world in their fight against international terrorism. I note the points that she has raised, however.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newark spoke of the need for balance and the need to ensure that, when we take action, we properly consider individual freedoms as against the need for collective security. Sometimes the challenges might be pushed in one direction or the other, but I am clear that they should be mutually reinforcing. If we are to uphold our values and traditions, and uphold who we are as a country, we must ensure that we properly respect individual freedoms and liberties while providing collective security for the country as a whole.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked about Hizb ut-Tahrir. That organisation is not proscribed, and proscription could be considered only when the Home Secretary believed it to be involved in terrorism, as defined by the Terrorism Act 2000. However, I want to make it clear to the House that the Government have significant concerns about Hizb ut-Tahrir, and we will continue to monitor its activities closely. Such groups are not free to spread hatred and incite violence as they please. The police have comprehensive powers to take action under the criminal law to deal with people who incite hatred, and they will do so. We will seek to ensure that Hizb ut-Tahrir and groups like it cannot operate without challenge in public places in this country. We will not tolerate secret meetings behind closed doors on premises funded by the taxpayer, and we will ensure that civic organisations are made well aware of Hizb ut-Tahrir and groups like it, and of the names under which they operate and the ways in which they go about their business. It would not be right for me to comment on individual cases, but we keep all organisations of concern under review.
	The hon. Lady will be aware of the taskforce that the Prime Minister has set up to examine the further options that we can take in the context of preventing terrorism. We are looking again at how we might deal with groups that fall below the current threshold for proscription but none the less espouse extremist views.

Keith Vaz: Will the Minister tell the House how many times the taskforce has met?

James Brokenshire: The taskforce has met twice, and it has considered a wide range of issues. We are focused on taking action to build on the very good work of the Prevent strategy. An example is the work of Prevent co-ordinators in universities to provide support and advice and to highlight understanding of the potential of extremist groups to operate on university campuses. The Prime Minister made it clear in his statement on the matter that he wants to examine all the issues closely to determine what further work and action could and should be undertaken. That work is progressing, and I am sure that the Prime Minister will continue to update the House on the work of the taskforce.
	Let me address the point raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North about the People’s Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran. That organisation was proscribed in 2001 and was de-proscribed in June 2008, following the judgments of the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission and the Court of Appeal. An appeals process can be undertaken in respect of a proscribed organisation.
	I should perhaps have underlined in my initial response to the Chairman of the Select Committee that proscribed organisations are kept under constant review. There is a rolling 12-month basis on which those organisations are reviewed by a group that draws in experts from across government. It is not the case that an organisation that has been proscribed would have to stay proscribed, as there is an ongoing process. I am sorry if he was not satisfied with my initial response to him. The work I highlighted related to how to ensure that the process of the annual reviews and what they produce can be strengthened and developed further to give greater assurance in respect of some of the issues that he highlighted.
	In conclusion, I would like to thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their considered comments. I believe that the proscription of Boko Haram will demonstrate our condemnation of that group’s activities. Proscribing it will also enable the police to carry out disruptive action against any of its supporters in the UK and ensure that they cannot operate here. The proscription of Minbar Ansar Deen will be a powerful tool for the police to help them successfully disrupt the organisation, and it will also send a powerful message that the promotion and encouragement of terrorism are not acceptable and that we will take action against organisations that partake in such activities.
	On the basis of those comments, I hope that the House will support the actions proposed by the Government, and I commend the order to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 8 July, be approved.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in Committee

Clause 3
	 — 
	Appointed day

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment 1.

Dawn Primarolo: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendments 2 to 9 and 20.

Christopher Chope: It gives me great pleasure to move amendment 1 and to discuss the other amendments in the group. I begin by paying tribute to the promoters, who said earlier today that two of my amendments in a subsequent group will be accepted, and I think that is a perfect answer to all those people who look askance at Members of this House who force debates on issues such as this and table amendments. The promoters have, by their actions, demonstrated the worthwhile nature of that behaviour.
	The concerns of my hon. Friends lie in trying to find out more about the proposals before us and ensuring that the same standards of high-quality legislation are applied to private legislation as are applied to normal public legislation. I shall refer to some examples later and I hope that the House will agree that there are examples of legislative provisions that are too woolly or imprecise to deserve to be put on the statute book.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The critics to whom the hon. Gentleman refers have obviously never had the opportunity of being in the Chamber and listening to the amendments that he and his colleagues have tabled. They have clearly demonstrated their worth over many, many years.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to crow, other than to say that it is important that just because a Bill is a private Bill it should not be subject to less scrutiny than a public Bill. As was said on Second Reading, why should a local authority impose a statutory regime in its area different from the national regime?
	I am delighted to see the Minister, who will be able to respond to some of the concerns about why a regime for dealing with skips different from the regime that applies elsewhere in the country that has to be introduced private legislation rather than through a public Bill promoted by the Government.
	Before I get too distracted from the subject matter of the amendments, I should say that amendments 1 and 2, which can be considered together, are an example of why the Bill is unnecessarily complex. The Bill applies to the whole of London other than the City of London, yet it is proposed that its provisions should be brought in at different times in different areas. If we are to have a regime for skips, for example, in London, surely the changes should apply to the whole of London at the same time rather than piecemeal. Yet clause 3(2) states:
	“Different days may be fixed under this section for the purpose of the application of the provisions mentioned in section 1(3) to different areas.”
	Likewise, clause 3(3) states:
	“Different days may be fixed under this section for the purpose of the application of the provisions mentioned in section 1(3) to an area.”

Philip Davies: I understand my hon. Friend’s point. Is it possible that what he mentions is done to enable authorities to trial something, to make sure that the system works efficiently and properly before extending it? If that is true, is it not sensible?

Christopher Chope: It may be that my hon. Friend, as so often, anticipates the response to come from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who speaks on behalf of the promoters. We shall have to wait and see. On the face of it, the issue is worthy of an explanation. If the legislation is untried and experimental, that should be clearly set out in the Bill.

David Nuttall: Might not confusion result from the fact that measures are to be introduced on different days in different parts of London? I might not be as generous in my thinking as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but could that not be a deliberate ploy to try to confuse people and set up a money-making racket?

Christopher Chope: It could be, but I am not going to try to follow my hon. Friend by making accusations against the promoters or London authorities by suggesting that the Bill is designed to confuse and ensure that they can get more in penalty income than they might otherwise be able to. Again, the fact that my hon. Friend raises that as an issue demonstrates the climate of suspicion regarding a lot of local authority in relation to the imposition of penalty charges, which I recall from having read an article are now giving hundreds of millions of pounds in income to London local authorities alone. Many people feel those measures were brought in almost by subterfuge through Bills such as the one we are considering tonight, and now many years later people can see that has resulted in a significant financial burden and quite a lot of injustice. That is why I think it would be better to have simplicity and clarity, which would require that any provisions in this Bill be introduced in all areas of London at the same time on the same day, rather than causing the confusion to which I have referred.

Philip Davies: I just wonder whether my hon. Friend’s amendment will achieve what he seeks. Are these parts of the Bill making something clear to people, rather than being a necessary part of the Bill? Even if my hon. Friend’s amendments were accepted, would it not still be possible for these measures to be introduced on different days? I am not entirely sure where it is made clear they would have to be on a specific day. Are these two parts of the Bill just making something clear to people?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend raises another point that I had not thought about, which is that these subsections may be superfluous anyway and it is implicit within the powers being given under clause 3 that an appointed day could be a different day for different parts of London in different circumstances, in which case, in trying to keep legislation simple there would be another argument in favour of accepting my amendments 1 and 2, as in leaving out subsections (2) and (3) of
	clause 3 they would make the Bill clearer. We will have to wait to hear the response to the debate before assessing whether these amendments are of such significance that we would seek to divide the House on them. Speaking for myself, I think it would be reasonable to await the full explanation before rushing to judgment.
	Amendment 3 is significant. It is the first of the amendments addressing part 2 of the Bill, and clause 4 in particular, which deals with the attachment of street lamps and signs to buildings, and changing the regulations relating thereto. At present, the regime is pretty restricted under the highways legislation, but this Bill seeks to give much wider powers to local authorities, enabling them to permit the attachment of street lamps and signs to buildings even when that is not approved or supported by the owners of those buildings. This power is potentially quite significant, because the owner of a building could suddenly find they are required to have a street lamp or sign attached to their building.
	We know from earlier stages of the Bill that the Society of London Theatre was very concerned about the impact of the measure on theatreland, and it is to the credit of the promoters that they decided that they would therefore exempt theatres, which is why clause 4(14) specifically states:
	“This section and section 5 shall not apply in respect of a theatre.”
	In a few moments I will talk about amendment 4, which follows on from that. Amendment 3, however, deals with subsection (13), which states:
	“A London authority may not, under section 3, appoint a day for the purposes of this section until a code of practice dealing with the exercise of the powers of the said section 45 and the said section 74 as modified by this section has been published by a joint committee.”
	My amendment would ensure that the code of practice must not only be published by a Joint Committee but be approved by the Secretary of State for Transport—an appropriate and proportionate safeguard.

David Nuttall: Amendment 3 specifically suggests that the approval of the Secretary of State for Transport should be sought. My limited understanding of these things is that the normal practice is to specify “the Secretary of State” and leave the actual office open. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend would like to expand on why he has specified the Secretary of State for Transport.

Christopher Chope: I am not learned in any sense of the term, but this amendment has been selected and I thought that rather than just referring to “the Secretary of State” it would more appropriate if it specified the Secretary of State for Transport. If the Minister wishes to intervene to suggest that it should be the responsibility of a different member of the Government, so be it. The point I am trying to make is that this is a significant issue. It is recognised by the promoters as sufficiently serious in its potential implications as to mean there should be a code of practice to deal with the exercise of the powers. The code should go further, in the sense that it should be approved by the Secretary of State for Transport. It would be unreasonable to expect this code to have to be approved by this House, through a statutory
	instrument, but it is reasonable to say that there should be a safeguard and that the Government can ensure that the code of practice accords with what is reasonable and proportionate. The Secretary of State for Transport could then be held accountable by this House for approving a code of practice if it did not meet the reasonable conditions we think ought to apply.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend comes at this with far more expertise and knowledge than I do, because whereas I never have been and never will be a Minister, he has been—indeed, he was in the then Department of Transport. Will he therefore outline how he would expect the Secretary of State to take on this responsibility? Would it just be a meaningless rubber-stamping exercise?

Christopher Chope: Whether it was a meaningless rubber-stamping exercise or something of substance would depend very much on the Minister. Although we would say that the code would be approved by the Secretary of State for Transport, in practice it would be brought before a more junior Minister, who would carry out the approval in the name of the Secretary of State. It is not for me to comment on the assiduous way in which various junior Ministers operate, but I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), would be extremely assiduous if he was the Minister charged with this responsibility. The paper would be put before him by his officials and he would ask probing questions, perhaps on an iterative basis, whereby it might take a few days or weeks before the matter went through. He would take the responsibility seriously and examine the code, raising any concerns he had and suggesting any modifications that he wanted to have.

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend rightly says that I would be entirely assiduous should this onerous burden be placed upon me, as I am with any such instrument; I carefully read these things and scrutinise them. I can tell him that the Government’s view, having examined the amendment, is that there would be no need for the Secretary of State to approve the code of practice; the code could stand by itself.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his remarks and I hope that in due course we can explore further the second part, in which he said that there was no need for the code of practice to be approved and that it could stand by itself. Quite, but would it not be an additional safeguard to ensure that it received the approval of the Government rather than just a Joint Committee, as suggested? I shall leave the matter there and we can perhaps explore it in due course.
	Amendment 4 would add a new subsection after clause 4(14) so that clauses 4 and 5 would
	“not apply in respect of any building in a conservation area.”
	The provisions already exclude any application to listed buildings and, as we have discussed, theatres, but a building in a conservation area has traditionally enjoyed the same protection as a listed building outside a conservation area. The essence of a conservation area is
	that all the buildings should be considered together in the context of the local environment. One might be concerned that if a lot of street lamps and signs were attached to buildings in a conservation area, that could detract from the character of the area quite significantly. My challenge to the Minister in responding to the debate is that if it is reasonable to exempt listed buildings from clause 4, why has that not also been extended to buildings in conservation areas?
	The next amendment in the group comes under the category of bad drafting and an attempt to take extremely wide powers. Amendment 5 would amend clause 5(4)(b), which deals with the serving of notices under clause 4 on people who would be affected by the application of the clause on the attachment of streetlamps and signs to buildings. It states:
	“If, for the purposes of serving a notice…the name or address of the relevant owner cannot be ascertained after reasonable enquiry, the notice…may be served by…addressing it to him by name or by the description of “owner” of the land (describing it)”.
	That is probably similar to a lot of the letters one gets through one’s letterbox addressed to “The Owner” and asking, “Have you thought of selling your house or letting it through some great agents?” It would seem to be perfectly reasonable. Alternatively, one could leave
	“it in the hands of a person who is”
	on the land as a
	“resident or employed on the land or leaving it conspicuously affixed to some building or object on or near the land.”
	That is a standard way of serving notices, by affixing them to a property. Giving it to a person who is resident is fine, but what concerns me is how we are to judge whether to give a formal notice to somebody who “appears to be” the resident. That is such a large loophole. Anybody could say, “I saw somebody there, they appeared to be the resident, I served notice on them. I don’t know who they were, I didn’t ask them any questions, but they appeared to be the resident.” That is granting a power that is far too wide—unnecessarily so—and could undermine the whole purpose of the clause, which is intended to ensure the reasonable service of notices and that the owner or resident of affected premises should receive the proper notice. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East on how we will judge whether people appear to be resident, and why it is necessary to have this extraordinarily wide power, which allows a notice to be left with somebody who appears to be resident; implicit in that is the idea that they may not be resident.

Philip Davies: I totally agree with my hon. Friend; this is a ludicrous state of affairs. Also, the Bill says “appears to be resident”—appears to whom? A person may appear to be resident to someone who is issuing a notice, but there is no regard to whether anybody else would think that the person was resident. Is this a good enough test?

Christopher Chope: Exactly. My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
	Clause 5(5) falls into the “ludicrous and superfluous” category. It says:
	“This section shall not be taken to exclude the employment of any method of service not expressly provided for by it”,
	but of course the clause is only permissive; subsection (1) says that a notice
	“may be served by post.”
	What does clause 5(5) add to the statute book, other than completely superfluous wording? I would have thought it a statement of the obvious. Do we really need to include on the statute book lots of statements of the obvious, like this one? Amendment 6 would therefore leave it out.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman is making a strong argument for the amendment. If I heard him correctly, he said that he had received an indication that some of his amendments may be accepted by the sponsor. Is this amendment one of those that he anticipates being acceptable to the sponsor?

Christopher Chope: I hope so, but I have not yet received formal notice about this amendment. The two amendments about which I have received formal notice are in the second group, and I will not go into those now. From the hon. Gentleman’s comments, it seems that he is supportive of the amendment—I am not sure whether he is referring to amendment 5 or 6; perhaps he could indicate that more clearly.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I was not indicating whether we supported or opposed the amendment; all I was saying was that the hon. Gentleman was making a strong argument.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman suddenly seems rather nervous about committing himself. I am grateful to him for acknowledging the strength of the argument, even if that is not carried forward into support in the Lobby.

Philip Davies: On amendment 6, which would leave out subsection (5), has my hon. Friend had any thoughts about what might be included in those other methods of service? Might they include notices being served by e-mail, or by some other electronic means? If so, does he support that?

Christopher Chope: I find that a rather testing intervention, because I am rather against the idea of using e-mails to serve notices. From my limited experience of receiving and sending e-mails, I think it is often not clear whether they have reached their destination or got lost in the ether. Quite a lot of mine seem to go into something—I cannot remember what it is called—

Philip Davies: Spam.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. They go into the spam folder, so they are effectively never received, because they are automatically deleted—or they certainly are on my computer, but I do not want to be drawn into that issue. The promoters may have it in mind that they could serve notices in that way to anybody who appeared to be resident, but I do not know how they would find out how to do that. I look forward to hearing from the sponsor on that point.
	One of the reasons why it can be frustrating for people following private legislation is that during the Committee stage of a Bill which is the subject of a petition it is not possible to go into the detail of the drafting, unless a petitioner has expressed concern about it or members of the Bill Committee take an interest
	and ask the promoters what a particular clause or subsection means. When the Bill comes back to the House on Report, it is often the first chance that we have to examine the wording and why the promoters consider it necessary.
	Clause 6 deals with damage to highways as a consequence of adjacent works. It provides that
	“The 1980 Act shall apply in Greater London as though for section 133 (damage to footways of streets by excavations) and its heading there were substituted—
	Damage to highway by carrying out of works”.
	The current wording of clause 6 is:
	“If a highway maintainable at the public expense is damaged by or in consequence of any works on land adjacent to the highway, the highway authority for the highway may make good the damage”.
	The effect of my amendment 7 would be that the highway authority “shall make good” the damage, because the highway authority has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the integrity of the highway. I declare an interest as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on highways maintenance. We had a meeting today to discuss the fraught issue of highway maintenance, the number of potholes that there are, and the rather varied performance of local authorities up and down the country in addressing the problems caused by deteriorating road surfaces and the creation of potholes.
	Most people say that it should be the responsibility of the highway authority to put the road back into good order if that is what has happened. Amendment 7 would make it mandatory for the highway authority to make good the damage, and amendment 8 would enable the highway authority to recover the expenses reasonably incurred by it in so doing.

Philip Davies: May we stick to amendment 7 for the time being? I agree with my hon. Friend’s general premise. Motorists get a raw deal in this country, considering the amount of tax that they pay. Might the amendment lead to a perverse situation where the damage may be minor, yet the local authority would be forced to carry out work, which may be considered disproportionate? Might that be an unintended consequence of my hon. Friend’s amendment?

Christopher Chope: That could well be an unintended consequence—

Philip Davies: Or an intended consequence.

Christopher Chope: I do not think it would be an intended consequence. I concede that my hon. Friend may have got me on that. Essentially, the question is whether we would describe minor damage as being covered by the amendment, or whether we are talking about significant damage. I drafted my amendment on the basis that we are talking about damage of such significance that it should be made good. We know that an unevenness on the road surface may soon deteriorate when heavy vehicles go over it or when it is subject to water penetration. What might start off as relatively minor damage may, if not addressed in timely fashion, become a significant pothole and a hazard to road users. My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I do not think that it really counters the general thrust of amendment 7, which is to
	try to ensure that the highway authority takes responsibility for making good any damage caused by works adjacent to the road.
	The penultimate amendment in this group is amendment 9, which—

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend, rather uncharacteristically, is rushing through his amendments and catching me out as a result. To return to amendment 8, which would insert the word “may”, is he indicating that clause 6, as currently drafted, would force the highway authority to recover the expenses? Is the purpose of his amendment to allow some flexibility?

Christopher Chope: Yes. If we were to leave out “may” and insert “shall”, as amendment 7 proposes, but not make amendment 8, obviously the highway authority would be required to make good the damage and be forced to recover the expenses reasonably incurred. I do not think that it would be sensible to oblige a highway authority under the terms of a statute to recover the expenses, which might prove difficult. It would be better to say that it “may” recover the expenses, which is why amendment 8 seeks to insert “may” in front of the word “recover” in the provision. That way, the highway authority would have a responsibility to make good any damage caused to the highway by adjacent works, but it would have discretion over whether or not to seek to recover the resulting expenses. I hope that is clear.

Philip Davies: It is clear, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend could expand a little on why he thinks the highway authority should not recover the expenses reasonably incurred.

Christopher Chope: In a sense, that is the other side of the coin my hon. Friend has just used. The answer is that it might not be worth the candle. Why should we force a local authority to try to recover a relatively small sum when the cost of doing so could be disproportionate? That is the best answer I can give to the good point he makes.
	Let me turn to amendment 9. This is another example of where the Bill’s drafting is unnecessarily wide. If a highway is damaged as a result of adjacent works, surely the person responsible for paying to repair it should be
	“(b) the person carrying out the works; or
	(c) the person on whose behalf the works were carried out.”
	Why should
	“(a) the owner of the land in question”
	be the subject of the recovery of expenses if he neither carried out the works nor had the works carried out on his behalf? That seems unnecessarily oppressive, because the owner of the land might know nothing whatsoever about the work being carried out or any damage resulting from it. That incorporates a provision of strict liability in circumstances in which I do not think it is reasonable.
	That is why I have tabled amendment 9, which would leave out subsection (a) and ensure that the expenses reasonably incurred could be recovered from the person who carried out the works or the person on whose behalf the works were carried out. That might often be the owner. However, if that person was not the owner, he would not and could not be liable. I look forward to
	hearing from the promoters of the Bill why they think it is reasonable to expect the owner of the land to be liable in the circumstances that I have described.

David Nuttall: Is my hon. Friend aware of the definition of “owner”? Is it a leasehold-owner or someone who owns the freehold?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes another good point. I do not know. The explanatory notes define “owner” in relation to part 3, but he is asking about part 2. That is perhaps an omission. There may be more than one owner. As he suggests, they may be a leasehold-owner, a freeholder, or, indeed, a sub-lessee. That is a reasonable point of inquiry. It might also be another reason why leaving out any reference to an owner would be the best way forward for the promoters of the Bill.
	Amendment 20 is in the same group, which is headed “Highways and general”—“general” in this case. It relates to part 4, which has only one clause—clause 15, on the subject of gated roads, which says:
	“Any person who opens, closes or otherwise operates or interferes with a relevant barrier without lawful excuse shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale…In subsection (1) a ‘relevant barrier’ means any barrier lawfully placed in, or over a highway by or on behalf of a traffic authority in London for the purpose of preventing or restricting the passage of vehicles or any class of vehicles into, out of, or along a highway.”
	My amendment 20 would leave out all that. If we are to have specific legislation creating a criminal offence for people who open, close or otherwise interfere with such barriers, it should introduce that offence right across the country rather than in a particular part of it. I have no evidence to suggest that there is a bigger problem relating to gated roads in London than anywhere else.
	Furthermore, introducing specific offences litters the statute book of criminal law with rather a lot of unnecessary trivia. In this case, if somebody goes along to a barrier and cuts off the padlock or forces it open in some way, they will be guilty of criminal damage, which is obviously already an offence in criminal law. The provision would potentially criminalise somebody who might open a barrier because it was not locked and then find themselves guilty of an offence.

Philip Davies: I agree with my hon. Friend wholeheartedly. Does he agree that there may well be a perfectly good, legitimate reason for somebody to do that if it is to preserve their health and safety or for other emergency purposes, and yet the provision does not give any wide-ranging exemptions for such people?

Christopher Chope: Absolutely. The clause refers to anyone who
	“interferes with a relevant barrier without lawful excuse”,
	which raises all sorts of questions regarding how to avoid the build-up of congestion caused by an accident or another incident such as a fire. If somebody says, “We need to open this barrier so that the traffic can flow more freely,” they might—unless they are authorised by the local authority—find themselves guilty of an offence. It seems to be a totally disproportionate response to the problem that the Bill’s promoters say exists.
	I have seen no evidence of how many occasions gated roads have been opened, closed or otherwise interfered with by people to the detriment of the local authority.
	As I said at the outset, if there is a problem surely it would be better dealt with under the Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which relates to all authorities, not just those in London.
	Rather earlier than some might have anticipated, I have reached the end of my introduction to the amendments, to which I have tried to speak in a constructive way. This is not an exercise in trying to prevent a Bill from making progress; it is an exercise in trying to ensure that the legislation that we put on the statute book is clear beyond peradventure and of sufficiently high quality to merit inclusion. It is very difficult to put these things right after the event, and on too many occasions in the past local authorities and Transport for London have been given wide powers that were not sufficiently explored beforehand, to the detriment of the general public. That is why, on behalf of road users and residents in London—I declare an interest as the owner of freehold property in London—I propose these amendments. I hope that the Bill’s promoters will address them as constructively as they have agreed to address at least two of the amendments in the next group.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for tabling these various amendments in, I trust, a spirit of exploring the intentions of the Bill’s promoters. I trust that my explanations will be sufficient for him not to press them to a vote. The Bill has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny both in this House and in the other place, so I will confine my remarks to the amendments.
	I gleaned from my hon. Friend’s remarks that he tabled amendments 1 and 2 because he wants an explanation, not because he wants to press them to a vote. They relate to the commencement date for the regulations on lamps and signage. The Bill’s promoters across London are very keen for ultimate flexibility as to when the regulations should be introduced. The amendments would constrain London authorities to introduce them all on the same day across London, which would be draconian. The purpose of this part of the Bill is to say that there will be a need for lamps and signage to be restricted, but at different times for different authorities. That does not alter the fact that authorities have to advertise and give notice of their wish to introduce these schemes, but they do not have to introduce them in the same way right across London.

David Nuttall: Will my hon. Friend give the House one or two examples of the sorts of signs and effects that would alter traffic systems?

Bob Blackman: There will be times when signage or lamps are required, possibly on a temporary basis, and therefore one needs to introduce them, and give notice of that, and then take them away again. Those signs might be for emergency roadworks, or a particular purpose such as special events that take place in London. There are regularly demonstrations and road closures for special events, and it would be foolish to have those signs unnecessarily in operation throughout London and the affected areas. I trust that that provides a suitable explanation. It does not change the fact that local authorities must still advertise the reason for lamps and signage, as is wholly appropriate.
	Amendment 3 suggests that after the Localism Act 2011, which enables local authorities to take many actions themselves, and after devolving power to London, we suddenly drag power back to the Secretary of State to force the Minister—or someone else—to consider the minutiae of things that go on in London. To me that seems to be overkill, and it does not take place in any other part of the country. The Secretary of State and Ministers have plenty to do without considering the minutiae of a code of practice that London local authorities will come together and agree, cross-party and for the good of all Londoners and London. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will accept that such things are best kept to a local level, rather than involving the Government. I understand that the Government have not stated that they want to interfere in such a process, and I am sure the Minister will confirm that in due course.

Christopher Chope: Is not the point that provision is already set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to deal with such issues? That is national legislation but the Bill seeks to modify it for London. My amendment would ensure that there is a proper safeguard for that proposed modification for London through the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend refers to localism, but surely such things should apply equally to all local authorities, not just those that bring forward Bills such as this.

Stephen Hammond: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Christopher Chope: I am making an intervention.

Lindsay Hoyle: The Minister is getting carried away. He cannot intervene on someone who is already intervening. I think we have got the message for Bob Blackman to respond.

Bob Blackman: Does the Minister wish to intervene?

Stephen Hammond: Wearily he climbs. Let me try and clear up this point. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that it should not be for the Government to consider the minutiae of things, but I suspect that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is not actually intra vires or workable. This is a Transport for London Bill, and therefore the code of practice would be incumbent on those in control of Transport for London. Transport for London is devolved to London, and such matters would be for it, and the Mayor to consider, not the Secretary of State. I therefore suggest that the amendment is completely unworkable.

Bob Blackman: I thank the Minister for that helpful intervention. Amendment 4 would mean that local authorities could not put up lamps and signs in a conservation area without consent. The problem is that councils already have the power to do that, although they must obtain the consent of the owner of the building. This is a decluttering measure; the idea behind these provisions is to remove the clutter of road signs and signage that appears all over London, which most of us Londoners recognise as disastrous. The amendment would restrict the ability of local authorities to declutter
	conservation areas and put up appropriate signs, although that ability is what most people want to see. Finally, the provisions in question, including those on conservation areas, were proposed by English Heritage. I bow to its expertise in wishing to pursue them.
	Amendment 5 deals with notices. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch made several points about people who appear to be residents or are employed on the land in question. The point is that notices would be served on such people if the local authority had been unable to ascertain the name or address of the owner of the premises. The provision in the Bill retains flexibility and is exactly the same as that in section 53 of the Crossrail Act 2008 and many other pieces of Government legislation. It is entirely consistent with previous legislation, so I strongly resist removing it.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is doing a good job of explaining the position. However, if I heard him correctly, he said that handing over a notice would be a last resort. Will he at least accept that the Bill does not actually say that?

Bob Blackman: It is clearly incumbent on the local authority to make every effort to establish the name and owner of a building, and it would be sensible for it to do that. However, in London in particular, there is often a freeholder, a leaseholder and maybe a sub-leaseholder, and the ownership and responsibility may be confused. The provision is about giving a notice setting out what is going to be done to the outside of a building. That is not particularly draconian, but it is clearly required. A local authority frequently goes through a set of procedures to make such things happen. It would be draconian to frustrate its ability to provide signage or lamps that are wholly consistent with the general requirements of TfL or London local authorities.
	Amendment 6 would remove the provision allowing local authorities to use any other existing general powers to serve notice. Councils have a power to do so under section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972, and that power is enshrined in the Bill. The effect of the amendment would be to remove that capability under the 1972 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch may have difficulties with that Act, but this is not the right place to express them.

David Nuttall: On that basis, if local authorities already have the power to serve notices, I am not quite sure what the purpose of clause 5(5) is.

Bob Blackman: It just reinforces and restates existing legislation, and I think it is sensible to have the relevant legislation all in one place so that people can understand everything that applies. The subsection is nothing new and does not amend the 1972 Act. That Act has gone through many changes, through London Acts and so on, so it is sensible to retain the subsection.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend says that the subsection just restates the existing law in section 233 of the 1972 Act. That section applies throughout the country, so why is it necessary to reapply an existing provision in a local Act? Why do we need clause 5(5) at all? He says that it is useful to have everything in one piece of legislation, but that provision is already in the 1972 Act.
	Unless there is something in the subsection that adds to or subtracts from section 233 of that Act, what is the point of having it? How can that be good legislation?

Bob Blackman: For clarity and continuity it is sensible to restate, not change, the position that already exists. There is nothing new in clause 5(5), but if I were reading the Bill, I would want to know that there was complete clarity about its purpose.
	Amendments 7 to 9 deal with cost and repair. There is nothing more frustrating for people than to see a development cause damage to a public highway, and for there then to be a lack of clarity about who will fix it. This is a problem in large parts of London. However, the effect of the amendments will possibly not be what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch intends. The local authority has a clear duty to maintain the highway so that it is in a good state of repair. In many parts of London it is not in a good state of repair. Where a developer or someone acting on behalf of an owner has caused damage, it is clear that the first option should be for the developer to repair the damage it has caused. Amendment 7 would remove the obligation on the developer to fix the damage it has caused and put the onus completely on the local authority to obtain the funding from the developer or the owner affected. This is, therefore, an unwanted measure.
	Existing national legislation is worded in exactly the same way as the proposed legislation. Amendment 7 would place London local authorities in a worse position than the local authority in, for example, Christchurch. I do not see any reason why London authorities should be placed in a worse position than authorities outside London. The position should be consistent for all three amendments: the first call is for the developer to fix the problem it has caused. If it does not fix it, then the local authority should step in, make good the damage, and charge the people who caused the damage in the first place. In all these cases, this is entirely consistent with national legislation. The obligation to fix it should be on the people who cause the damage.

Christopher Chope: The explanatory memorandum states that
	“Clause 6 would replace section 133 with provisions for London that would enable the highway authority to recover their expenses of remedying such damage to any part of the highway, not just the footway.”
	That seems to be what is being changed, rather than the means by which the damages can be recovered. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a lot of rather superfluous wording, if the purpose is just to be able to extend an existing power from the footway to the whole of the highway?

Bob Blackman: The key point is who repairs the damage initially, or how the money is recovered. The point is that it should be the developer who causes the damage—frequently, heavy lorries delivering goods to a site cause damage to the highway as well the footway—who repairs it first. If they do not repair it, then the local authority steps in, makes good the damage, serves a notice and recovers the money. Unfortunately, the effect of all three amendments would remove the position of the developer doing any work at all, and put the onus fairly and squarely on the highways authority to make good and then try to recover the costs. That would be terribly frustrating for all concerned.

David Nuttall: I am not sure that I entirely agree with that interpretation. All that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) seek to do is move the word “may” from line 30 to line 31. At the moment it states:
	“may make good the damage and recover the expenses”.
	If amendments 7 and 8 were accepted it would state:
	“shall make good the damage and may recover the expenses”.
	In both cases, the “may” would apply to the question of the recovering of expenses.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for that point, but that is completely the wrong way around. The polluter should pay. The developer who has caused the damage should pay. The point is this: whether they repair it themselves to the required standard of the highways authority or whether the highways authority makes good and then charges is a matter for the local authority. That is certainly something that they should be doing. Certainly, they should not expect the council tax payer or general taxpayer to fund the repair of damage caused by a developer, but, if the amendments were passed, the developer would be under no obligation to make good the damage and the local authority might be unable to recover the costs incurred, which would be a retrograde step.

Christopher Chope: I think we are at cross-purposes. My hon. Friend rightly said that the polluter should pay, but my concern is that if the polluter does not repair the damage to the highway, it might go unrepaired, unless my amendment 7 is carried, as it would require the local authority to repair the damage.

Bob Blackman: The highways authority already has a duty to keep the highways in good repair. As I read the amendment—I was only able to read it today—my concern is that it would not allow the developer to fix the problem.

Christopher Chope: Yes, it would

Bob Blackman: No, it wouldn’t. It says that the local authority “shall” step in and do the work, irrespective. That wording is incorrect and is why I shall resist amendment 7, as well as amendments 8 and 9, which are all consequential amendments.
	On amendment 20, London has many gates placed across roads to prevent the flow of traffic through residential communities. The roads are normally accessible by the emergency services—the fire brigade, ambulance service and police—and other appropriate authorities, but sometimes there is a severe problem. At the moment, if someone damages a gate, they can be held liable for criminal damage, but if they merely open the gate for their own convenience—to access the road or bypass a congested road—it defeats the purpose of that gate, which is to prevent large parts of London from being used as rat runs. The promoters therefore seek an enforcement option. If, on being directed by the emergency services, someone opened a gate, clearly they would not be guilty of an offence, but if they opened a gate for their own convenience—or for other people’s convenience,
	for joyriding or whatever—they would be guilty of an offence, and it would be up to the local authorities to enforce those actions.
	I accept completely that there is an issue of interpretation around the reason for opening the gate, and there is always the potential for somebody to receive a penalty for incorrectly opening one, but it is entirely fair and proper to make it clear that people should not open one unless they have authority or good reason to believe that life or limb are in danger.

Philip Davies: I am not entirely sure that the matter is as clear-cut as my hon. Friend says. As I understand it, if someone is at a red traffic light, an emergency vehicle wishes to get through and that person moves through the red light to allow it through, they still can be, and in some cases have been, prosecuted for going through a red light. I fear that, under the clause, if somebody for a good, common sense, although perhaps not lawful reason, opened a gate to allow an emergency vehicle to get to the scene of an accident, they could still find themselves prosecuted, which surely cannot be anybody’s intention.

Bob Blackman: Clearly, this is a matter of interpretation. The purpose of placing barriers across a traffic highway is to prevent the incursion of normal vehicles, but I cannot envisage someone ever being prosecuted for opening a gate that is normally locked in order to give access to an ambulance, the police or the fire brigade. However, the promoters are keen to ensure that people understand that if they interfere with a locked gate that is there for the purpose of preventing traffic from passing through, that will be an offence and they can be prosecuted.

Christopher Chope: Obviously we want to test out the new provision, because it would create a new criminal offence, so what about the following scenario? What if somebody finds that the gate is open and therefore closes it? Under the provisions we are discussing, they would be liable.

Bob Blackman: Having made something of a study of such gates in London over the years, I can say that they are almost all locked with padlocks—except where someone has stolen the padlock, in which chase the gate will often flip open and shut. Young people—in general it is young people—have a habit of occasionally using such gates as a form of entertainment. We need to make it clear that such gates are there for a purpose. This issue is a matter of interpretation. We are talking about gates being interfered with—that is, opened to allow the incursion of traffic.

Philip Davies: My earlier intervention fell on stony ground, so I will try from a different angle. My hon. Friend thinks that somebody in the scenario that I painted would not be prosecuted, but how about this scenario? What would happen if somebody refused to open the gate for an emergency vehicle in a desperate situation because they feared being prosecuted for contravening the law as it stands? Would that not be a shocking consequence of the proposal we are discussing?

Bob Blackman: It would be shocking; indeed, it would be shocking if the emergency services did not have the keys to access such a gate when they arrived at the
	scene, which in my experience they always do. To my knowledge—I will bow to anyone else’s superior knowledge—there has never been a situation where the emergency services required access to such a gate but were prevented because they were not carrying the keys.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Is it not also the case that the emergency services have a statutory power of entry when they are fulfilling their duties under the appropriate legislation?

Bob Blackman: I cannot imagine that anyone who was acting under the authority and direction of a member of the relevant services would be prosecuted for that.
	In summary, on behalf of the promoters, I hope that I have given sufficient explanation to enable the mover of the amendment to withdraw it, rather than pressing it to a vote.

David Nuttall: rose—

Philip Davies: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: What a choice! I call Mr Nuttall.

David Nuttall: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As always, it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who went through the amendments with his usual courtesy and in a good natured and thoughtful way. I am extremely grateful for some of the explanations he gave. I am not entirely convinced by every one of them, as I will explain, but I am extremely grateful that he put forward the promoters’ case so eloquently on their behalf.
	It has already been a long old road for this Bill, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree. Only yesterday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and I noticed that it was up for debate this evening, I said, “I seem to recall that I might have spoken on Second Reading.” He said, “I think you did.” I said, “I can’t recall when that was.” He replied, “Oh, it was about March time,” so I went away and looked it up. I found that Second Reading did indeed take place about March time, but March last year—on 6 March 2012, to be precise.
	The Bill has changed fairly substantially since it was first introduced in the other place. It has gradually shrunk in size, as clause after clause has been shed, for one reason or another. Members might well be wondering what has happened in the intervening period—

Lindsay Hoyle: Well, let me help the hon. Gentleman. We are discussing the amendments, and we do not need to hear the history of the Bill prior to the amendments because, in fairness, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has already set out the subject very well. I know that the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) is desperate to speak only to the amendments.

David Nuttall: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am indeed. In one sentence, let me say that this is relevant because there was an opposed Committee meeting on 6 November last year that resulted in the Bill shrinking since the last time we discussed it, so we now have a different Bill—

Lindsay Hoyle: Don’t worry, I do not need to see the Bill shrinking before my eyes. All I want to hear being discussed are the amendments, and I know that that is all the hon. Gentleman is going to do. No more sentences; we are going to stick to the amendments.

David Nuttall: I was just finishing the sentence, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	I shall start with amendments 1 and 2. I am surprised that only two of the amendments have been accepted by the promoters. As has already become evident, there are some good arguments for many of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. Amendments 1 and 2 deal with the starting dates. They are worth considering because it would make sense, if we are introducing new laws that will apply all across London, to have them start at the same time. I listened carefully to the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East about the need for complete flexibility. He also suggested that it would be somewhat draconian to introduce new rules to be applied across London all at the same time. The other side to that argument is that, if the boroughs introduced the new rules on different dates—or even in different years—there could be confusion, to say the least, as to which boroughs had adopted a particular new rule and which had not.
	Let us look at the details of clause 3(2) and (3). They imply that different start dates could be set even within the same borough. Subsection (2) states:
	“Different days may be fixed under this section for the purposes of the application of the provisions mentioned in section 1(3) to different areas.”
	I emphasise the words “to different areas”. The only way in which subsection (3) differs is in its final three words, which are “to an area”. It states:
	“Different days may be fixed under this section for the purposes of the application of the provisions mentioned in section 1(3) to an area.”
	I appreciate the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East that the signs could be put in place for temporary reasons, or to implement temporary traffic flow measures. Obviously, no one could possibly argue that that kind of sign should not be put up and then taken down again so as to suit the circumstances. However, I see no reason why that could not apply even if amendments 1 and 2 were accepted and those two subsections were left out of the Bill, which would be a sensible step to take.
	Amendment 3 would add the words
	“and approved by the Secretary of State for Transport”
	to the end of clause 4(13). In an intervention, I said that I took issue to a small degree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. First of all, by limiting the provision to the Secretary of State for Transport, there could be problems in the future if, for example, there were not a Secretary of State for Transport. Personally, I would prefer the description “the Secretary of State”. I heard the Minister say in an intervention that in any event, this matter should be dealt with by the Mayor of London, and there might well be some merit in that.
	Whichever road we go down, however, whether it be the Mayor of London or the Secretary of State, the point is that there needs to be some oversight,
	notwithstanding the arguments made very eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East on behalf of the promoters that this is a matter where localism should apply. In fact, I have some sympathy with that argument. I think there is a lot to be said for localism, but we have to be careful that localism is not taken a bit too far, so that we end up with one rule in one place that does not apply in another place. It understandably then starts to bring the law into disrepute as people become somewhat confused about what the law is.
	If this amendment is accepted—we have yet to see the will of the House on it—I have absolutely no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister will look at the code of conduct very carefully indeed, meticulously looking at its different aspects, and I have no doubt at all that he would make a good job of it. This code of conduct does not have to be a long matter, as we are not imposing a particularly onerous task on the Secretary of State.
	Amendment 4 adds a new subsection (14A) to clause 4, stating:
	“This section and section 5 shall not apply in respect of any building in a conservation area.”
	I think this is a sensible measure.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East described the clause as “a decluttering exercise”, and I agree that there are far too many signs about, which is very confusing. I wholeheartedly support any measures to do with decluttering. I would be even more impressed, therefore, if clause 4 were headed “Removal of street lamps and signs to buildings” rather than “Attachments of street lamps and signs to buildings”, which suggests to me that the aim is not to remove the street lights or signs, but to make provision for them to be added to a building. As far as I can see, that is what the clause is about—the circumstances in which a sign can be added to a building; hence all the rules and regulations about serving a notice before such action is taken. I am not entirely convinced. There might well be some ideas about how to get rid of the superfluous signs that clutter up our streetscapes around London. As I say, however, I would be more impressed if there were some evidence of that on the face of the Bill.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman says that he is not convinced by the arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who I think said that many of the decluttering proposals were being supported, indeed perhaps even sponsored, by English Heritage. Is the hon. Gentleman thus not only unconvinced, but confused that English Heritage is putting forward these proposals that are about trying to declutter our streets?

David Nuttall: What I cannot understand is why we would need legislation to remove a sign. I understand why legislation is needed to put a sign up, but I am not aware that once a sign is up legislation is required to remove it; someone could just go and take it down. I would be interested to know from others whether I am right. Perhaps after a certain period, a sign acquires some sort of importance. If it is attached to a listed building, it might become part of the listing. However, there is no evidence in the Bill that that is intended. There is merit in saying that special provisions should apply to the effect that clause 4 should not apply to any building in a conservation area.
	Amendment 5 deals with a
	“notice served under section 4(4), (8) or (11)(a).”
	Such notices can be served in a number of ways. I leave aside the irrelevance of the whole clause; we will come to that in a moment. Clause 5(4) states that the notice could be left
	“in the hands of a person who is…resident…employed on the land or leaving it conspicuously affixed to some building or object on or near the land”
	or with someone who “appears to be resident”.
	I have personal experience of doing the job. When I was first employed as a trainee legal executive, part of my role was to go to far-flung parts of Sheffield to serve such notices. I have done the job and know the problems of serving notices and trying to find somewhere suitable to fix them. I can imagine the situations that may arise when some poor council official is faced with being sent out on a rainy Friday morning to some distant part of London to try to serve a notice.
	We need to consider the purpose of serving the notice. It is to ensure that a person affected by this legislation knows what is about to happen. The problem with clause 5(4) is that a notice can be given to someone who just “appears to be resident”. They might not be resident; they might be passing through or cleaning the windows. Some owners clean their own windows, while others employ people to do it. The person serving the notice might easily leave it with someone who they genuinely thought lived there, but that person might stuff it in their pocket without thinking twice.
	I will not detain the House any further on this matter, but there is clearly scope for the four words in amendment 5 to be taken out of clause 5(4). The clause would be much better without them.
	Amendment 6 would remove an even more bizarre subsection:
	“This section shall not be taken to exclude the employment of any method of service not expressly provided for by it.”
	In other words all the mentions of methods of serving a notice, such as by post, or sending it to an address that has been given or to a limited company, or, as I have just mentioned, of actually going and giving it to a person—an employee, perhaps—or putting it on an object nearby or on to the building, can be left aside and people can do whatever they like. They can just turn up, perhaps, or put it in a hot air balloon and hope it will drift by, and say, “Well, that was the method I thought of. It wasn’t a very good one, but this doesn’t exclude the employment of any method, so I thought of that. A colleague tried to convince me it should be a carrier pigeon, but I thought a balloon would be a good idea.” This is just nonsense.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) rightly brought up the question of e-mail. Subsection (5) may well be intended to provide for the use of e-mail, in which I case I would say that that is fine and in the modern world there is nothing wrong with serving notices by e-mail. Bearing in mind the long gestation of this Bill, however, I cannot understand why that is not expressly set out in it, if that is what the promoters had in mind.
	Amendments 7 and 8 are best dealt with together. The issue in question is slightly confusing because it all revolves around the words “may” and “shall”. As we
	heard in the exchanges that took place a few moments ago, the interpretation of this clause is everything, really. The whole essence of the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is simply to make things clear. As the clause is currently drafted, the authority might make good the damage, but they might not. My hon. Friend’s amendment makes it the case that the highway “shall” be repaired. I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East about that imposing an obligation on authorities, but I would have thought that they would want to see the highway properly maintained for a number of reasons, first from the point of view of their residents and secondly from the point of view of risk reduction. As we all know, it is a very costly exercise for local authorities to not properly maintain the highway, so I would have thought that they would in any event want to make good any damage caused by a contractor, and I see no problem with replacing “may” with “shall” or with moving the word “may” to before the word “recover” so that they may recover the expenses. It may well be that they will do that in every single case, so in 100% of cases they will have the right to go and recover the expenses from the contractor, but that does no more than the clause as currently drafted does. It already says that they may make good the damage and recover the expenses, so it implies that they may not. I cannot see why this amendment cannot be accepted.
	Amendment 9 is very well thought out. I understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East made on behalf of the promoters, which was that they understandably want to recover the costs they have incurred, but I cannot understand why they should try to recover them from somebody who may have nothing to do with the damage caused. It makes sense to recover the costs from whoever has caused the damage, on the polluter pays principle—I entirely agree with that. However, simply saying that they should have the right to recover them from the owner of the land, without any explanation as to how the owner may be identified—without saying whether it is the freeholder, the leaseholder, the sub-lessee or the tenant—creates a lawyer’s paradise, a description I shall use in relation to amendment 20. I can just imagine the length of the litigation that might ensue from this provision were it allowed to remain in the Bill, so I strongly support amendment 9.
	Amendment 20, the last in the group, relates to gated roads and clause 15. I was going to inquire what specific problem the clause was intended to remedy, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for explaining at length what the problem was. The further he went with his explanation, the more obvious the problem became. I understand that it is a serious problem. These gates are clearly there for a reason—to prevent vehicles from using routes as rat runs.
	However, my hon. Friend went on to say that this is a matter of interpretation. He said that these gates are normally locked and are almost all locked except where someone has stolen the padlock. In other words, one of these gates could be open only if a criminal offence has taken place. That offence would be either theft of the padlock or criminal damage, if the gate has been prised open and left. By definition, from what was said earlier, it could only be, in these circumstances, that a criminal
	offence had taken place, given that these gates are normally locked and are almost always locked, except when someone has stolen the padlock.
	I therefore entirely support amendment 20, because the clause would affect my constituents if they came to London. They might be familiar with gated roads in my constituency, or in any other constituency where this law would not apply, and they would think it would be perfectly all right to open the gate. They would drive through it quite innocently, without realising that they were committing a criminal offence.

Christopher Chope: On reflection, would my hon. Friend agree that the biggest problem with the clause is that it criminalises the good samaritan? As the explanatory memorandum points out, it is an offence to drive along a road in breach of a road traffic regulation, so if somebody finds one of these gates open and closes it to prevent other people from committing road traffic offences by driving through that open gap, they will be liable to a criminal penalty under this clause.

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is one of the problems with the clause: it will potentially make criminals out of people who seek to do good. That cannot be right. It also prompts the question of what signage would be in place. In the context of the other clauses, we were talking about trying to remove signs, but there now might need to be new signs to warn people that such activity is a criminal offence. I entirely support the amendment and I look forward to hearing from others.

Philip Davies: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I call Mr Philip Davies, and I am modestly confident that the contribution will be relatively brief as I feel sure that he will wish to get on with the consideration of amendment 10. Nevertheless, I have come back to hear colleagues and I wish to hear from the hon. Gentleman.

Philip Davies: Among your many other great qualities, Mr Speaker, you are clearly a mind reader. I was only just thinking to myself that I must be brief so that we could get on to the next group of amendments. I commend you for that.
	I find myself in a rather difficult position. I usually agree totally with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) in his amendments, which are always thoughtfully considered and well argued. He usually manages to persuade me. I am rather torn on this group of amendments, however, as although he has persuaded me on some of them he has not on others. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has done a great job in making the case for the proposers of the Bill and articulating their side of the argument and, in some cases, he has persuaded me.
	I am not entirely sure how this might operate, as I am not an expert in the procedures of the House—unlike you, Mr Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch—but I want to tell my hon. Friend which of his amendments I think are strongest and on which he might, if possible, wish to divide the House. Some of the amendments are stronger than others.
	Some of my hon. Friend’s amendments are superficially attractive, as they generally are. He made a good point with amendments 1 and 2, which highlight provisions in the clause that are either bad or unnecessary. However, there is some merit in having some flexibility for the London boroughs in organising how they do business. There might be good reasons for trialling measures or introducing them at different times, and that flexibility should be allowed. The provisions might be superfluous but I do not see from listening to the arguments that they are particularly dangerous.

Christopher Chope: At the risk of hastening my hon. Friend on, will he specify which he thinks are the best amendments in order of preference? If his remarks are cut short, we will then have heard him putting the best first so that we can consider on which of them we might wish to divide the House.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I certainly will do that. To cut to the chase, his strongest amendment is amendment 5, on the issue of serving notices and whether someone is a resident or, as the Bill states, “appears to be” the resident. For me, the situation is completely nonsensical. On what basis does somebody appear to be a resident? One of us might be delivering leaflets in our constituency, as we do, and might have just left the door of a place only for somebody from the local authority to come along to serve the notice. Seeing that we are leaving the door, they might serve us with the notice because they presume, quite wrongly, that we are the resident. All sorts of ridiculous scenarios could ensue. Sometimes, such provisions are just for the convenience of the laziness of local officials, so that they can use the justification that as far as they could see somebody appeared to be a resident and they therefore did not have to take any reasonable steps to ensure that that person was a resident. Surely the least any resident affected by these provisions can expect is that the authority concerned makes a proper effort to serve them with the relevant notice. If it was enough for someone to appear to be a resident, the local authority could, for its convenience, idly hand that person the notice, come what may. That is a ludicrous situation that we in this House should not tolerate, so I hope that my hon. Friend will consider pressing amendment 5 to a Division; that would be doing us a great service.
	My hon. Friend’s other particularly strong amendment is amendment 20, on gated roads. This is a very important issue. As I mentioned in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, there are often well-meaning, well-intentioned provisions in legislation that have totally perverse outcomes. As I said, if a person drives through a red light to allow an emergency vehicle through, they are liable to prosecution for the offence of going through a red light. People might think, “It would be ludicrous if anyone who went through a red light just to allow an emergency vehicle through was prosecuted. Surely that would never happen,” but people have been prosecuted in those very circumstances. It does actually happen.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East says that when someone opens the gates for a good, common-sense reason, they will not be prosecuted. I do not doubt that that is his genuine belief, but we cannot pass legislation on the basis of what we think is likely to happen; we have to look at what the legislation actually states. We cannot allow perversity in the law. What if
	there is a terrible accident, and someone says, “For goodness’ sake, open that gate! An emergency vehicle is coming along in five minutes, and we need this person to be dealt with as soon as possible,” so a person opens the gate, and then finds themselves with a criminal record because they had done something they were not allowed to do under this legislation? That would be ludicrous, and we would be enshrining that kind of perversity in law.
	On the other hand, someone who is encouraged to open a gate because an emergency vehicle is coming in five minutes’ time may say, “No, I’m not opening the gate, because I know the legislation, and I will be committing a criminal offence if I do.” We may end up with that kind of idiotic situation as an unintended consequence of the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will try to find a way for amendments 20 and 6 to be put to the vote.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) were very gung-ho about amendment 9, and I feared that they might seek to put it to a vote. I advise a certain amount of caution, because including a reference to the owner of the land in the legislation is quite sensible. Clause 6 does not say that the highway authority has to go after the owner; it just allows the authority the flexibility to do so, if that is the right person to pursue.
	Let me briefly show why that may be a good idea. If the provision mentioned only the person carrying out the works and the person on whose behalf the works were being carried out, the following scenario could arise. Say a landowner’s permission is sought for work to be carried out. Although they are happy for that work to be done, and may well have encouraged it to be done, it may not have been carried out on their behalf, and they may not be the people carrying it out. However, they could quite easily be just as liable as the other people for the damage done, because they gave their consent for the work, although it was inappropriate.
	Another scenario may come into play. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch may unintentionally create a loophole with his amendment, because a wealthy landowner who does not want to be liable for any damage caused may get someone who has no means whatever to request that work be carried out, and get another person who has no means whatever to do the work. When the damage is done, the local authority has no means of recovering its money because the people who carried out and officially requested the work have nothing. The owner of the land, who actually wanted the work done in the first place, though that may not be evident at the time, gets away scot-free. I therefore fear that my hon. Friend could be creating a loophole, which would be unfortunate. Knowing him as I do, I am sure that would be an unintended consequence of what he is trying to achieve. I urge caution on him in pursuing amendment 9, even though I appreciate that my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Bury North feel that it is a particularly strong one.
	We had a long debate about whether approval should be given by the Secretary of State for Transport. I totally understood the point made by my hon. Friend
	the Member for Christchurch. Equally, I took the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. There is merit in both cases and I do not think that one is stronger than the other. For that reason I would not want my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to pursue amendment 3.
	The same applies to amendment 4 about a building in a conservation area. My initial reaction was that that was a sensible amendment tabled by my hon. Friend. However, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East about the view of English Heritage was a strong one. One would think that if any organisation is likely to want to protect conservation areas, it would be English Heritage. If it does not see this as a big issue, I am not entirely sure that I should, although my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North made a good point about decluttering. I did not read the provision as an attempt to declutter; to be honest, I saw it as an attempt to add clutter.
	I caution my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East that what may be useful decluttering to a London resident may not necessarily be helpful to people who are not residents of London, but come down to visit London, as my constituents do. Signage that may be superfluous to a London resident is absolutely not superfluous to people from other parts of the country. The problem with localism for London is that London is a city that relies on lots of people from out of London visiting it. We can take localism too far in London and more thought should be given to people from Shipley, Bury, Dorset and other parts of the country who come and visit, and rely on some of those signs because they do not know the local area.
	I have covered amendment 5 so I will not go over that again. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch thought amendment 6 was a good one. Advances in modern technology may well increase the need for e-mail and so on. I hope he will not press the amendment.
	In the interests of brevity, I will not go through the other amendments that he ran through. I hope I have made it clear that on some it was good to tease out the answers from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, but those amendments are not worth pursuing. Amendments 5 and 20 are welcome and I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will find a way to press those to a Division.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).
	When the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) was initially moving his amendments in a self-deprecating fashion, saying that he is sometimes criticised for the role he plays in private Business, I said in an intervention that that is not the view on the Opposition Benches. We value the service he provides, ably assisted by his hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for Shipley. I sometimes query whether the length of time taken is necessary, but I do not in any way, shape or form challenge, question or criticise the right to table amendments and make sure that legislation such as this is scrutinised.
	Having listened to the arguments from the hon. Member for Christchurch and his hon. Friends and the explanations from the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman),
	I regret to inform the hon. Member for Christchurch that should he press any of the amendments in this group to a vote, Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition will not be joining him in the Lobby.

Christopher Chope: With your encouragement, Mr Speaker, this has been a very civilised debate and we have covered the ground. As I said, this is the first opportunity we have had to look at much of the detail of the Bill. I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for having responded to the points that were made. I have been convinced by many of the arguments, and he produced answers to many of my concerns.
	With regard to the two amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) identified as being worthy of further consideration by testing the will of the House, my inclination is not to press amendment 5, because my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said that clause 5, to which the amendment relates, is a complete replication of the existing law set out in section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972, in which case to divide the House would probably be to seek its indulgence in a way that I would prefer not to do. I hope that it will be possible in due course to seek the House’s view on amendment 20, which would mean having a Division after we consider the next group of amendments.
	Having listened to the debate, it seems to me that the issue of gated roads has national application, rather than being confined to London. If we are to create a completely new offence, as both my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) have said, we must ensure that the legislation is as plain as a pikestaff so that everybody knows where they stand. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said, we cannot be in the business of passing laws that are a matter of interpretation.
	I think that it would be wrong to create through legislation a new criminal offence that could have the effect of penalising a good Samaritan. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, it is idiotic that a person who closes a gate after him, when it had been open, could find himself on the wrong side of the criminal law. There is too much control by political correctness. We now have a situation in which firemen are not prepared to go and rescue somebody because that might be against health and safety regulations. We do not want a situation in which a person does not close a gate in their neighbourhood that is normally closed because they fear that to do so might be to commit a criminal offence. For those reasons, and thanking everybody who has contributed to the debate, I seek the leave of the House, at the appropriate moment, to test its opinion on amendment 20.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am clear that he wishes at some stage to test the will of the House on amendment 20, but could I ask him to be clear on whether he wishes to do so in respect of amendment 1?

Christopher Chope: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8
	 — 
	Identifying the “owner” of a builder’s skip

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment 10.

Mr Speaker: With this is will be convenient to consider amendments 11 to 19.

Christopher Chope: These amendments relate to part 3 of the Bill, which deals with “Builders’ Skips”. It is important that we have a proper control regime for builders’ skips. It is also important that we are absolutely clear in our own minds about what the impact of the proposed changes to the Bill would be. For example, amendment 10 would add to section 8(1) so that the relevant highway authority could require the relevant person to provide them with the name and address of the owner of the builder’s skip
	“where that information is not clearly and indelibly marked under the provisions of section 9”.
	Section 9 provides that a skip must be
	“clearly and indelibly marked with the owner’s name and with his telephone number or address”.
	It seems to me that the best way of resolving this matter is to ensure that the skip must be, as amendment 15 suggests, clearly and indelibly marked with the owner’s name, telephone number and address. If that is done and there is no breach of the provision, it will not be necessary for the highway authority to exercise the power set out in clause 8 because the information that it is seeking to ascertain will already be in its knowledge and the knowledge of anybody else who looks at the skip in question. That would improve the wording of the Bill.
	Amendment 11 challenges the current provision, which states:
	“A requirement under this section shall specify the period within which it must be complied with, which must be a period no shorter than 3 working days beginning with the date on which the request was made.”

Bob Blackman: rose—

Christopher Chope: I will take my hon. Friend’s intervention shortly, but I am going to anticipate it in my next comments. Prior to his looking at this because it was drawn to his attention by my amendment, nobody had thought through how reasonable a period of three working days would be in these circumstances. As a result of my tabling amendment 11 to insert 14 working days instead, he and the promoters of the Bill have seen the unreasonableness of the original proposition and the reasonableness of the amendment. He indicated in a letter that I received this morning that he would be willing to accept the amendment.

Bob Blackman: I congratulate my hon. Friend on tabling this amendment. The promoters are happy to accept it, and I do so on their behalf without the need for a Division.

Christopher Chope: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend.
	Amendments 12 and 13 deal with the level of penalty for any person convicted of an offence under clause 8(6), which says that
	“in the case of an offence under paragraph (a)”
	the fine should be “not exceeding level 3”. However, under paragraph (a) the penalty would apply to somebody
	“on whom a requirement is imposed…if…without reasonable excuse he fails to comply within the period specified”.
	That means that he would not be providing the information within 14 working days. That is, I submit, a relatively minor contravention that should merit, if indeed it is prosecuted at all, only a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale. Obviously, if a person responds to the requirement and, in so doing, gives information that he knows is false in a material particular, that is much more serious. The gravity of that could be reflected in a fine not exceeding level 3 rather than a massive one at level 5. I look forward to my hon. Friend explaining why the fine levels in the Bill were chosen.

Philip Davies: Will my hon. Friend clarify what sums are involved at levels 1, 3 and 5 so that we may better assess a reasonable amount that somebody should be fined?

Christopher Chope: I am afraid that that is the exam question I hoped would not be asked, because I do not know the answer off the top of my head. What I do know, however, is that a fine not exceeding level 1 is much lower than a fine not exceeding level 5.
	Amendment 14 relates to the burden of proof and to avoiding the creation of offences of strict liability when strict liability is disproportionate and not appropriate. Clause 9 states that a penalty charge is payable if
	“a builder’s skip has been deposited on a highway in accordance with a permission granted under…section 139 but the owner of the skip does not secure that…the skip is properly lighted”.
	In other words, it is an offence of strict liability. The amendment would insert
	“take any reasonable steps to”
	after “not”, because if the owner has taken reasonable steps to secure that the skip is properly lit during the hours of darkness but something happens that causes it not to be properly lit, I do not think it would be reasonable to impose a penalty charge on the skip owner.

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend have in mind a scenario in which a skip that has been properly lit is vandalised by people who prevent it from being lit? As it stands the owner would still be liable even if he had done everything he could to ensure that the skip was properly lit. Does my hon. Friend think that “taking any reasonable steps” would protect somebody who was doing their best?

Christopher Chope: That is exactly the scenario I had in mind. The owner might employ security guards to look at the skip regularly, but if the light was stolen or vandalised at some point would it be reasonable to say that the owner should be liable to a penalty charge?
	When I spoke to amendment 10, I referred to amendment 15, which would strengthen the Bill because it would make it incumbent on the owner to take reasonable steps to ensure that the skip is clearly and indelibly marked with his name and telephone number and—rather
	than or—his address. Having a name and telephone number on a skip is not as good as having a name and address on a skip. I do not understand why the Bill’s promoters and drafters did not require both the telephone number and the address of the skip owner to be displayed. I would have thought that that would be much more preferable. That shows that these amendments are designed not to undermine the Bill, but to try to strengthen it where appropriate.
	Amendment 16 relates back to clause 9(6)(d). Subsection (6) sets out, for the purposes of the London Local Authorities Act 2007, a number of provisions relating to
	“the grounds on which representations may be made against a penalty charge 40 notice arising”,
	one of which is paragraph (d), which notes that
	“the contravention of the relevant provision in question was due to the act or default of another person and that he took all precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the contravention by himself or another person under his control.”
	That seems brilliant, but subsection (8) states:
	“Where the ground mentioned in subsection (6)(d) is relied on in any representations…the relevant highway authority may disregard the representations unless, before the representations are considered, the person making the representations has served on the relevant highway authority a notice in writing giving such information identifying or assisting in the identification of that other person as was then in his possession.”
	That seems oppressive in the extreme. It would be fine to leave in subsection (6)(d) without subsection (8), and that is the purpose of amendment 16, which I hope will be acceptable to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that if amendment 14 is accepted and requires someone to take “any reasonable steps” with regard to a properly lighted skip, we would not need subsection (8)? Amendment 14 is a much neater way of doing what the promoters of the Bill seem to be trying to do with their other provisions.

Christopher Chope: Exactly. Sometimes the imagination of those who draft private Bills runs away with them and they think of all possible scenarios. Requiring someone who has taken all reasonable precautions to avoid a contravention to set out in writing their information about other people who might have been up to no good, goes too far.
	On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who I am sorry is not in his place, made a point about the immobilisation of builders’ skips—I think the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) also raised that issue. If a builder’s skip is unlit, not properly guarded, causing a nuisance, filled with rotting rubbish or whatever, is it sensible to immobilise it? That is the challenge I put to the promoters of the Bill with amendments 17 to 19, which would leave out clauses 12 to 14.
	If the owners of a skip have offended against provisions in part 3 of the Bill, surely penalty notices and so on will be involved. To immobilise the skip in the meantime, thereby preventing its owner from removing it when it is not lit or causing a nuisance, seems to go slightly in the wrong direction. I am sure I am wrong about that, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East responds to the debate he will put me right and explain
	why London would be a better place if all skips were immobilised. The fact that this was a cross-party issue and taken up on Second Reading was not properly addressed in Committee, so I hope it can be addressed in response to my remarks. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend in the hope that we can proceed with these amendments in a similar way to the previous ones.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for outlining his various amendments. I will run briefly through the promoters’ view of each. I trust that he will see the logic that they have applied.
	The amendments relate to proposals for the decriminalisation of the position on builders’ skips. The power to enforce the rules and if necessary—I emphasise that—immobilise skips when relevant notices are not complied with will instead be put in the hands of the local authority. The authority will have to be convinced that immobilisation is the correct thing to do.
	Amendment 10 suggests that information should be provided only if it
	“is not clearly and indelibly marked under the provision of section 9”.
	I think my hon. Friend has got the wording incorrect, because the requirement set out in the Bill is under section 139 of the Highways Act 1980. The problem, as Members will see if they come to various parts of London and see skips on the roads, is that there may be a name on the side of a skip, but it might not be accurate, because skips are swapped around various companies at various times. The amendment would place a severe burden on skip suppliers to ensure that the details were accurate. On that basis, I do not think it would be sensible to accept it, particularly given the rest of the Bill’s provisions.
	The promoters wish to accept amendment 11, and on reflection believe that 14 days should be allowed for compliance. That makes better sense.
	Amendment 12 is about the maximum fine for not complying with a request. For clarification, I point out that a level 3 fine is currently £1,000 and a level 1 fine £200. The Government are currently consulting on increasing those levels fourfold, and the Ministry of Justice has raised no objections to the proposal that level 3 be the appropriate fine for the offence set out in clause 8(5)(a). In fact, a level 3 fine is lower than the fine in some equivalent cases. For example, under section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the maximum fine for the equivalent offence is level 5, which is £5,000. The promoters have sought the right level for an offence of this type. If skips are placed on the road in contravention of highways law, appropriate fines are needed for the local authority to remedy the situation. If the owner did not provide relevant details, the local authority would find it difficult to remove the skip, immobilise it or take appropriate penalty action against the supplier. People need to understand that if they deliberately flout the rules, they will get a severe fine.
	Amendment 13 is about the offence of knowingly supplying false information in response to a legitimate request from a local authority for the name of the provider and owner of a skip. The Bill currently provides
	for a level 5 fine, which is £5,000. The amendment would lower the fine to £1,000. A draconian fine is required to prevent people from knowingly misleading the local authority, so that they cannot leave a dangerous skip on the road without the authority being able to identify who had done so.
	Amendment 14 lowers the threshold at which a penalty charge notice could be served when a skip owner does not take reasonable steps to comply with the existing requirements. We need to make clear that the Bill is a decriminalisation measure. At the moment, there are no “reasonable steps” elements in it. The amendment, therefore, would water down the requirements considerably. The general public—motorists, pedestrians and others—have a right to believe that if skips are placed on the public highway they will be properly positioned, properly lit and will not be dangerous to motorists or pedestrians. The amendment would water down the proposals considerably and unfairly.

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend has said on a couple of occasions that this Bill is a decriminalisation measure. Many people will be somewhat mystified by a decriminalisation measure that clearly creates criminal offences.

Bob Blackman: The point is that these are criminal offences at the moment. The proposals would put the power relating to the public highway in the hands of local authorities, so that they would take action to prevent people from allowing dangerous structures—skips, in this particular case. There was something similar many years ago with parking control, for example. Parking control used to be enforced by the police. It was then decriminalised and put in the hands of local authorities to enforce. A similar position is proposed in the Bill. Instead of the police having to take action, local authority personnel would take action. That does not make it any less of a requirement. It shifts the requirement from the police, who I think we would all say have a big job to do anyway and should not have to do such work; it should be the job of local authorities. That is the purpose of the Bill, and that is why I describe it as a decriminalisation measure. The police enforce the criminal law; local authorities have a duty to enforce the Highways Act 1980 and other appropriate rules.

David Nuttall: On that point, will my hon. Friend inform the House what sort of court someone would be taken to under these offences? Who would enforce them?

Bob Blackman: A penalty charge notice would be issued initially. If that is paid, that is the end of the matter. If it is not paid, it is then presumably for the local authority—I would take advice on this—to take the matter to the county court or the magistrates court to push a position where liability orders would be obtained, and the enforcement action would follow in a similar vein to that of a parking offence on the public highway. Hopefully none of that would ever arise, because people would realise that if they failed to observe the rules they would face high penalties. We all want the streets to be safe. This is a set of proposals for when people deliberately flout the rules. We need draconian measures to ensure that that position is maintained.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend says that it is perfectly reasonable that somebody who owns a skip should be subject to massive penalty charges if in the course of the night the lighting is stolen or vandalised and ceases to operate through no fault of their own. Can that really be fair?

Bob Blackman: The current position is that were that to happen and lighting was removed, a criminal offence would have been committed. The police would step in and take appropriate action against either the owner of the skip or the owner of the property at which the skip was based. Clearly, we want skips that are placed on the public highway to be lit properly and placed in a sensible and not a dangerous position. I will come on to that point later. We can water down the criminal law and remove the ability of people simply to claim, “It’s nothing to do with me, guv. What can I do if someone removes the lighting?” That does not change the fact, however, that someone has driven their car into a badly lit skip, causing immense damage. At that point, it will be a matter of ensuring that the wrong is put right, and that, if it is not, a fine is issued. It is as simple as that.
	Amendment 15 would require names, addresses and telephone numbers to be marked on skips. That would change the law in London, meaning that skip owners would face much more draconian measures in London than outside it. [Laughter.] My hon. Friends smile and laugh, but when someone acquires a skip in London, they do not necessarily acquire it from a site in London; they might acquire it from a skip owner outside London, who would then have to take it to London. If the amendment were passed, the owner would be burdened with having to mark the address and phone number in a way that did not apply in the rest of the country.
	I know plenty of skip-owning firms that come from way outside London to provide skips, as well providing skips in their own areas. The amendment would provide for a regulatory burden in London that did not exist elsewhere, resulting in the potential problem of people inadvertently falling foul of the law. I agree that there might be an argument for amending national legislation in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch suggested, but he is a promoter of deregulation, wherever possible, and I do not believe that we want to impose unnecessary regulation on businesses outside London. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and should not be pursued.
	Amendment 16 deals with penalty charge notices. If we left out subsection (8), anyone served with a PCN could say, “It’s not me, guv. I’m not responsible.” As far as I am aware, whenever a PCN is issued for an offence on the highways, it is for the person served to substantiate whether someone else was responsible. If we left out the subsection, that person could say, “It’s nothing to do with me”, and then the authorities could not pursue those responsible. For that reason, we would resist the amendment.

David Nuttall: The logical conclusion is that the person on whom the authorities have served the notice must turn investigator and solve the problem themselves.

Bob Blackman: Clearly, it would be incumbent on the person served with the PCN to substantiate that the contravention was down to someone else, in the same way as they would make representations against any
	other PCN. The local authority would then examine those grounds, and if they were relevant and someone else was responsible, the PCN would be withdrawn and issued to the relevant person. That is exactly how local authorities deal with highways offences.
	Amendments 17, 18 and 19 deal with potential immobilisation. Clearly, local authorities in London want the power to immobilise a skip if they deem it appropriate, but of course if a skip is in a dangerous position on the highways, the last thing they are going to do is immobilise it; they will want it removed. If, however, it is in a reasonably safe position and a notice to change the lighting has been issued, the local authority could step in, light the skip and immobilise it using the devices on the market that allow that to be done, making it safe for pedestrians and other road users. At the same time, they could pursue the person who has contravened the rules. A local authority would do that only if it was appropriate to do so, which is quite right. Amendments 17, 18 and 19 deal with that issue.
	One of the challenges is what is in the skip. Obviously local authorities need the discretion to remove anything that is inappropriate.

Jim Fitzpatrick: If I remember correctly, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) pointed out on Second Reading that many people did not realise that skips could be immobilised, given their size and weight. However, the hon. Gentleman has just explained that such devices are available. When it is safe, their use may be appropriate to prevent people from flouting their responsibilities when they place skips on our roads.

Bob Blackman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the issue.
	In summary, let me say on behalf of the promoters that we accept amendment 11 and oppose the rest of the amendments in this group. Part 3 of the Bill deals with appropriate action to make London streets safer when people put skips on the public highway, by ensuring appropriate fines and enforcement action when people break or flout the rules. We will accept amendment 11, but I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch not to press the other amendments.

Philip Davies: I seek to fulfil the same role in this debate as I did in the debate on the previous group of amendments, by speaking briefly and highlighting for my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) where I think he is on to a winner and also where he has not necessarily persuaded me of the merits of his case.
	I am rather puzzled by the whole debate on amendment 10. My hon. Friend made a good case for saying that we should ask people to supply information about the owner of a builder’s skip only
	“where that information is not clearly and indelibly marked under the provisions of section 9,”
	as his amendment sets out. If I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) correctly—I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong, which I may well be—he was saying that because skips change ownership quite often, having just a name, telephone number, address or whatever it might be on the skip would not necessarily be a good enough indicator of the actual owner, because the skip might have changed hands a couple of times since those markings were
	applied. That might well be true, but the problem is that it flies in the face of clause 9, which states that the owner would have to ensure—I might add that anyone who did not do this would have to pay a fine—that
	“the skip is clearly and indelibly marked with the owner’s name and with his telephone number or address”.
	The promoters of the Bill cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that such information is required for the purposes of clause 9, but that it would be unfair to require it in clause 8. I would advise my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East to have another think, because my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is simply proposing a modest, common-sense amendment that goes with the flow of the Bill, not against it.

David Nuttall: Perhaps I can assist my hon. Friend. The difference might be that clause 8(1) refers to “the name and address”, whereas clause 9(3)(b)(iii) refers to “telephone number or address”, so perhaps the owner could give a telephone number, but not an address.

Philip Davies: I appreciate that point, but amendment 10, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, simply says that if the information was already clearly marked, it would not have to be requested. To me that seems a sensible and modest amendment, and I certainly agree with it.
	I am delighted that amendment 11 has been accepted—we do not need to waste any time on that. I do not intend to delay the House for long by discussing amendments 12 and 13. I do not have a strong opinion on the level of the fine, but I want to make a wider point on legislation generally. If we look at different pieces of legislation “in silo”, we might find individual fines appropriate or inappropriate, but we could end up in the ridiculous situation whereby some serious offences attract small penalties and some minor ones attract severe ones. Instead, we ought to look at the criminal justice system as a whole, to determine the appropriate level for different severities of crime. I wonder whether this particular offence could attract a much more severe penalty than other, more serious, crimes.
	I want to concentrate on amendment 14, because I think my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is on to a winner there. He proposes that the owner of a skip should pay a penalty charge if they do not
	“take any reasonable steps to”
	secure that various precautions are taken, rather than simply if they do not secure that they are taken, as the Bill currently proposes. That is just common sense. The owner could have done everything possible to ensure that the skip was “properly lighted”, for example, but someone could come along in the middle of the night when they are fast asleep and vandalise the lighting. The local authority could then impose a fine, even though the skip had been perfectly well lit. I do not see how the owner could have been expected to do more. If amendment 14 is not accepted, however, that person could find themselves in the ludicrous situation of having to pay a penalty. That cannot be right. It flies in the face of common sense.
	I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East is a sensible, moderate chap, and he personally would apply all these rules with the proper discretion
	and common sense, but we cannot pass legislation that is reliant on people doing that. If we do so, we will end up with perversities in the law. We need to avoid that. It seems perfectly sensible to ask people to take “reasonable steps” to do things. That should be sufficient. We cannot ask them to do things that are, in essence, beyond their control. That is the problem with the Bill as it stands at the moment. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will find a way to divide the House on amendment 14 if it is not accepted by the promoters, because it represents a common-sense approach.
	I see amendment 16 as a natural consequence of amendment 14. As I understand it, if amendment 14 were accepted, the whole issue of clause 9(8) would become redundant. I therefore hope that, if amendment 14 were accepted, amendment 16 would be accepted as well. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will concentrate his fire on amendment 14, because it is a sensible proposal that would improve the Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East suggested that amendment 14 would water down the Bill, but it would not. In clause 9(6), the promoters of the Bill are trying to deal with the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I have raised. Paragraph (d) states that people may appeal against a penalty charge if, for example, the contravention
	“was due to the act or default of another person and…he took all precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the contravention by himself of another person under his control.”
	There, the promoters are trying to do exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is seeking to do in amendment 14. Having tried to deal with these anomalies, however, they muddy the waters with clause 9(8), which introduces yet another condition to make it difficult for the owner to achieve what is required. The amendment would not water down the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East suggests; it would make clear the purpose of the legislation. In my opinion, it clarifies the Bill.
	I would hope that the scenario I have given—of somebody who properly lights a skip, goes to bed with it properly lit and finds it vandalised in the middle of the night—would persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East that the person should not be prosecuted. I hope he would accept that; I am sure he does, because he is a reasonable man. The legislation as it stands would not necessarily prevent that person from being prosecuted; the only thing that would do so is amendment 14, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. Because my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and I agree that such a person should not be prosecuted, I hope that he will follow through the logic of that position and accept amendment 14, which will deliver what both he and I think should be the case.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support of my amendment. Does he accept that exactly what he is asking for is in a sense reflected in clause 9(3)(b)(iv), which provides that
	“the skip is removed as soon as practicable after it has been filled”?
	It does not say that it should be removed as soon as it has been filled, but as soon as is practicable. That has been accepted by the promoters, but not extended to other provisions.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. His amendment goes with the flow of the legislation rather than against it, and I think this is a genuine improvement.
	On amendment 15, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. Making the provisions for London much more onerous than in other parts of the country would be unfair. The only thing I will say—and here I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I tease him somewhat—is that his point about not providing different rules for London than obtain in other parts of the country is the argument that we have been making in respect of virtually every other part of this particular Bill. He has refused to accept that particular logic with all the other provisions, so it seems to me ironic that he was prepared to pull that argument out of the hat when it suited him, when he has denied it in respect of lots of other amendments on this legislation. I hope he will forgive me for teasing him in that way.
	On the final three amendments—amendments 17, 18 and 19—I thought my hon. Friend for Christchurch made a very good point in his usual engaging and amusing way in saying that if a skip is causing a particular problem in a local community, it is surely the wrong solution to immobilise it and keep it there unnecessarily for even longer. I am not entirely sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East answered that point to my satisfaction, because there is an unerring logic to what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was saying. It may well be that there are occasions when immobilisation is the best solution, although my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I cannot think of them. I am prepared on that basis to give my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East a rather dubious benefit of the doubt.
	I do not want to extend my remarks any further, but I reiterate my hope that if the opportunity allows it, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will seek to press his amendment 14, which is the strongest of his amendments and the one that would improve this legislation without doubt.

David Nuttall: If I may, I will start where my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)left off, and work in reverse order through this set of amendments, presented so ably a short while ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). I am grateful, as ever, for the clarification of what might be termed the case for the defence, so ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).
	Starting with amendments 17, 18 and 19, I entirely agree that it is somewhat bizarre that the solution to a problem skip is to immobilise it, but I was persuaded by what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East had to say on the matter. To be perfectly honest, I have never seen one of these devices, and I can only imagine what they must look like. I understand that they both immobilise and light up the skip at the same time, which seems an eminently sensible idea for dealing with a problem skip. I have always thought that even empty skips are particularly difficult to move, so I would not think that they needed much help to be immobilised, although I am prepared to accept that that may well be a solution in some cases.
	I turn to the other easy one—amendment 11, which has sensibly been accepted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and the promoters. That
	demonstrates the sense and worth of the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch in going through the Bill in some detail and tabling the amendments. The promoters have accepted that the correct period is 14 rather than three working days.
	I turn to the slightly more contentious amendments. I looked at amendment 10 and thought it was merely a clarification. There would be no point in criminalising someone or causing them to commit an offence if the information was patently obvious from looking at the side of the skip, in accordance with clause 9. Apparently, the promoters think otherwise. Personally, I would support amendment 10.
	We now move neatly into the debate about decriminalisation. We are not really decriminalising these things, just moving the responsibility for taking action from one authority, the police, to another authority, the local authority. The net result is the same. Anyone reading language such as “commits an offence” would think, “Crikey! They mean a criminal offence.” Apparently, however, the measure represents decriminalisation. I humbly suggest that if clause 8 had read, “A person on whom a requirement is imposed under this section shall be liable to a civil penalty,” that would have been more appropriate if the intention was to decriminalise.
	I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said about amendment 14. It is entirely right that when it comes to the liability of someone who has committed a skip offence, to use some shorthand—[Interruption.] Not a skipping offence, but a builder’s skip offence. When it comes to such a person’s liability, the inclusion of the words
	“take any reasonable steps to”
	is entirely sensible. Although it might look as though one of those specific offences was being committed, there could be a whole host of reasons why a person ought not to be held liable.
	The issue of criminalisation is important when considering the question of proof. If the offences are to remain criminal, the burden of proof is “beyond all reasonable doubt”. However, if they are to be dealt with according to a civil burden of proof, “the balance of probabilities” applies—it could be 51:49. There is a whole host of difference between liability in criminal and civil cases. The matter needs to be nailed down. We need to be absolutely clear about whether we are decriminalising this. Is it going to be a criminal offence, or is it going to be a civil offence and is it going to be dealt with under the civil law? That will affect the burden of proof required of those who seek to enforce these requirements.
	Let me make it clear that I entirely agree that these are sensible laws to have. I remember a case from some years ago—the 1980s—when I was acting for someone who ran into a skip that was not lit. That does happen, and it is a serious matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, some of these amendments seek to strengthen the Bill, as, indeed, does amendment 15. I, too, found it somewhat ironic to hear an argument that we have often deployed, which is that the law in London should not be different from the law in the rest of the United Kingdom.
	On amendment 15, I think it is sensible to have something other than just a telephone number or the address, because there is a danger that many skip operators will opt to have an address that might be a PO box or the registered office of a limited company which turns out to be a huge office block in London with hundreds of other offices, and which is in fact the office of an accountant or a lawyer, and not a place of work of the skip owner. I therefore think amendment 15 is entirely sensible. Although I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said, it may well be an idea for a private Member’s Bill to at some point bring in on a national basis the requirement that all skips should bear the name, address and telephone number, so that if there is a problem, the person who is responsible for putting the skip there can easily be found.
	On amendment 16 and the question of effectively making the accused, whether of a criminal offence or a civil liability, guilty unless they prove themselves innocent, I again entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley that if amendment 14 were accepted, to give them that “get out of jail free card”—if one can describe it as that—by saying that if they had taken reasonable steps, they would not be liable, would negate this rather draconian step of saying, “Look, once we’ve served you with this notice, it is your responsibility to come up with some other person who is more guilty than you are.” It seems a very strange way of setting up a legal system, and it seems to me to be entirely alien to all the principles of English law. I can well see that at some future point there may be many a legal case fought over clause 9(8), as people say, “How can it be fair that I have been picked on? I have got nothing to do with this, yet I have been victimised and made to pay this penalty.”

Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the big problems is that local authorities have already demonstrated through the use of decriminalised penalty notices that they can be over-zealous and keen to get the maximum amount of revenue irrespective of the justice of a situation, which is why we hear all these stories of traffic wardens hiding and then creeping up on unsuspecting motorists so that they can get extra penalty points imposed and extra fines for themselves and their local authority?

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend makes a good point, as that is one reason why one is slightly sceptical about this sort of clause. Just this day I received a letter from a constituent raising exactly that point about the behaviour of traffic enforcement officers in Bury; it detailed how they have been served with a penalty notice in circumstances where it would have been easy to deal with the matter in another way if more common sense had been applied. That would have avoided having to give a local resident a penalty notice. Such examples make me want to agree with my hon. Friend’s proposition that people will be suspicious that this provision is there to make it easy for the local authority officer to find somebody. It does not matter who they find on this basis; they can give the notice to almost anybody and they will be able to say, “We have done what we can. It is now your problem. If you weren’t responsible, it is now your responsibility to find somebody who was.” I humbly submit that that is clearly not the right way for things to be. It should be the responsibility of the responsible officer of the local authority to find out who is responsible, rather than
	expecting a person on whom a notice has been served to identify that other person for the purposes of determining who has committed the offence.
	If I were to enter this little competition of saying which amendment I would press, I would opt for amendment 14, as it is entirely reasonable that where someone has taken reasonable steps to avoid committing an offence, they should not be held liable under this part of the Bill. With that, I will wait to hear what others have to say.

Christopher Chope: In summing up an excellent debate, may I thank my hon. Friend the Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for their contributions? If the Minister had contributed, the debate would have been even better, as indeed it would have been had the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) spoken—they demonstrated unusual self-restraint on these important issues, particularly on the issue of “national versus local”.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, the promoters of the Bill are now saying that it would be unreasonable potentially to impose on operators from outside London a requirement to put their name, telephone number and address on a skip, given that the legislation that applies outside London requires only the telephone number or the address. Clearly, there is an inconsistency between the approach of the promoters to those of us who argue that we should have national legislation on these issues rather than localised legislation.

David Nuttall: I appreciate that my hon. Friend is summing up, but are we not talking about the same case that was made earlier in respect of amendment 20 and gated roads?

Christopher Chope: Exactly the same point applies in relation to gated roads, which is why it is a pity that we have not heard from the two Front-Bench spokespeople on where they think the balance should be between individual local authorities, or groups of local authorities, legislating in this area and a responsibility for the Government to try to introduce a national regime.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has gone through each of the amendments seriatim and tried—

Stephen Pound: Seriatim!

Christopher Chope: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is joining in with the debate, albeit from a sedentary position, because he has been referred to already in dispatches, as he might know. We had been hoping to hear from him on immobilisation devices, but he has now put on record his enthusiasm for the word “seriatim”.
	Let me take the amendments one by one for the benefit of the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said that he did not think that amendment 10 would be appropriate because of the conflict between the national and local legislation. This is an opportunity for London to lead the field so that others can follow. It would be sensible, taking amendments 15 and 10 together, to require that in London skips should have the name, address and telephone number of the owner clearly and
	indelibly marked on them. I am disappointed that the promoters are not interested in accepting those amendments but I am delighted that amendment 11 is to be accepted.
	On amendments 12 and 13, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing to our attention that there is a proposal to increase fourfold the maximum fine levels on the standard scales. I think that would have quite a significant impact on the cost of living of the criminal classes. It would also put into a negative position all those provisions where the maximum fine level is 3—£1,000, which is reasonable—
	Three hours having elapsed since the start of proceedings, thebusiness was interrupted (Order, 3 July).
	Bill to be further considered on Tuesday 16 July.

Business without Debate

Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [Lords]

Bill to be read a Second time on Tuesday 16 July.

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Natural Resources Body for Wales (Consequential Provision) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 3 June, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Energy

That the draft Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 10 June, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Judicial Appointments and Discipline

That the draft Judicial Appointments Commission Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 20 June, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Judicial Appointments and Discipline

That the draft Judicial Appointments Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 20 June, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

That the draft Supreme Court (Judicial Appointments) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 20 June, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Variation of the Limit of Compensatory Award) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 10 June, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 17 July (Standing Order. No. 41A).

Draft Deregulation Bill (JOint committee)

Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 4 July 2013, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the draft Deregulation Bill presented to both Houses on 1 July 2013 (Cm 8642).
	That a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Deregulation Bill (Cm 8642).
	That the Committee should report by 16 December 2013.
	That the Committee shall have power:
	(1) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(2) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(3) to report from time to time;
	(4) to appoint specialist advisers; and
	(5) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
	That Andrew Bridgen, James Duddridge, John Hemming, Kelvin Hopkins, Ian Lavery and Priti Patel be members of the Committee.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Prescription Charges (Long-term Conditions)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Bob Russell: We should rejoice at the wonderful advances in medical science, particularly in the last half-century, which have enhanced the quality of life of people with serious health conditions, and we should give thanks to those whose research made those advances possible. Some people’s lives have been extended, or even saved. The invaluable research work goes on. I pay tribute to those involved; they deserve our gratitude. In the case of cystic fibrosis, I should mention the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, pioneering researchers at places such as the Royal Brompton hospital, and patients and their families, past and present, without whose endurance the present survival rates would never have been achieved.
	It is not that long ago that for some conditions, such as cystic fibrosis, life expectancy was so low that few lived beyond their teens. Today, living into the 40s is the average, and that will improve still further; of that I am sure. Although there have been advances in helping those with serious health conditions, to the point that today people are better placed than at any time in history, the reality is that the rules, regulations and bureaucracy of prescription charge exemptions are stuck in a time warp, taking us back to nearly half a century ago. It is astonishing that while we have witnessed medical advances and breakthroughs on a large scale, achieved by those driving forward the boundaries of medical research, successive Governments, wedded to the bureaucracy of the 1960s, have not moved forward an inch when it comes to helping people with serious health conditions to pay for prescriptions. People are forced to pay, in many instances to stay alive, and in every instance to sustain a quality of life that is seriously compromised if the right level of medication is not taken.
	I am grateful to the Prescription Charges Coalition, which comprises 27 organisations, including the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, with which I have had an association for 16 years, and Asthma UK, the British Heart Foundation, Crohn’s and Colitis UK, the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, Parkinson’s UK, Rethink Mental Illness, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the Terence Higgins Trust and the Multiple Sclerosis Society. They cover a wide range of serious conditions, and they are united in calling on the Government to put right an anomaly. I am confident that those who, 45 years ago, drew up the list of exemptions would today, because of medical advances, include on the list those conditions represented by the Prescription Charges Coalition.
	Yesterday morning, the associate parliamentary health group held a seminar in the Jubilee Room entitled “Public health killers: tackling obesity, smoking and alcohol abuse”. Why does the national health service treat those who are guilty of abusing their body better, in financial terms, than those to whom mother nature has given serious health conditions? We should contrast what the Prescription Charges Coalition is calling for—free prescriptions for those who need them to live—with the £5 billion spent every year on health problems associated with being overweight or obese, or the £2.7 billion per
	annum cost to the NHS because of alcohol misuse. Alcohol-related admissions to hospital, according to Department of Health statistics, are rising at a rate of around 11% a year. Smoking is the biggest killer, accounting for nearly 80,000 preventable deaths in England in 2011. What I do not have a figure for, but it must cost the NHS billions of pounds, is dealing with the consequences of people taking illegal drugs.
	Given that enormous cost to the public purse as a result of self-inflicted lifestyle choices, I call on the Government to look fairly on those with health conditions whose lifestyle choices are restricted. The cost of what I am seeking is modest in comparison with the huge sums that I have listed for self-inflicted body abuse.
	I am pleased that this evening I can raise a serious issue, which I also highlighted in the last parliamentary Session through early-day motion 1, signed by 41 hon. Members, namely the terrible unfairness faced by those with cystic fibrosis who have to pay prescription charges. That also applies to those with other conditions embraced by members of the Prescription Charges Coalition, who I know will understand why, in the limited time available, I will concentrate my remarks on CF; however, my case for CF applies equally to the other conditions.
	As I am sure the Minister will be aware, the criteria that determine eligibility for exemption from prescription charges for those with certain medical conditions were laid down in 1968. The only slight amendment was the welcome addition in 2009 of cancer. In 1968, someone with cystic fibrosis was unlikely to live until adulthood. I am pleased to say that, 45 years on, life expectancy is 41-plus. However, the condition continues to claim the lives of younger adults, teenagers and even children. For the 10,000 people in the UK with cystic fibrosis—contrast that relatively low figure with the 945,000 alcohol-related admissions to hospitals each year: 10,000 versus 945,000—their condition is such that they are especially prone to infection and may eventually require a lung transplant.
	I therefore support the call made last Friday by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who wants the law changed in respect of organ donations so that there should be presumed consent. This follows the welcome announcement last week by the Welsh Assembly of a move towards presumed organ donation consent significantly to increase the number of organs for transplant. We should do the same in England.
	Those with cystic fibrosis have a great deal to contend with throughout their lives and, on reaching adulthood, they face the additional burden of having to pay prescription charges to stay alive unless—this would be laughable if it was not so serious—they have insulin-dependent diabetes, which gives them an exemption from paying. It is such a nonsense, you could not make it up.
	Tonight’s debate is about the striking inequality and the significant impact that prescription charges are having on people in England who have a range of long-term conditions, but not those living in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In support of the Prescription Charges Coalition, I call for a fairer system of exemptions. It is a matter of considerable concern that many people with long-term conditions are not collecting or taking their medicines effectively because of the cost, as is all too clearly illustrated in the Prescription Charges Coalition’s recent report, “Paying the Price”.
	Many MPs will be aware of reports of constituents struggling to afford their prescriptions and the impossible choices they have had to make between paying for food, clothing, housing and other bills or their prescription medication. Austerity has added to the problems. People with long-term conditions are not “all in this together”, as the Chancellor would have us believe. For many, it means splitting tablets in half, missing doses or substituting cheaper but less effective alternatives to eke out medication until pay day. Inevitably, individual health suffers and there are numerous knock-on effects. The Prescription Charges Coalition’s survey found, very worryingly, that more than one third of those who pay for each prescription had not collected at least one item because of the cost. Indeed, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society reports that pharmacists are often asked, “Which of these prescriptions can I do without?”
	I am advised that the majority of those who reported that they were not taking their medicine as prescribed said that their health had got worse as a result, with additional treatment then being required. Emergency admission to hospital was the dramatic and costly consequence in 10% of cases. For example, one respondent said: “I ended up being hospitalised for two weeks because I missed five days of medication.” Another stated: “I could not afford the prescribed medication, went without, and ended up having panic attacks and losing my job.”
	The implications of this are extensive, not only for the individual’s quality of life and long-term health outcomes, but with regard to the impact on their families, on their ability to remain in employment and independent of state support, and also, of course, on the NHS. At a breakfast briefing this morning I was surprised to be told that this is not a matter for consideration by the Care Quality Commission. This suggests a lack of joined-up thinking on the health needs of our country. The stress and anxiety caused by worrying about how to afford prescription costs can exacerbate a condition and the ability to manage it effectively. Individuals also report cutting back on food or utility bills to afford medicines, which could also clearly have an impact on their health.
	Those with long-term conditions do not choose to be ill. They face a daily routine of various types of medication and physiotherapy to maintain any quality of life. The Department of Health is aware of the survey by the Prescription Charges Coalition, so I hope that the Minister will tonight confirm that she is personally aware that more than half of those who reported not taking their medicine as prescribed cited cost as the reason. Perhaps she can explain why there is discrimination against those with long-term conditions who live in England. Why cannot they get the same deal as those living in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?
	I suggest to the Minister that one way of helping immediately would be to scrap the 28-day prescribing limit for those with stable, long-term conditions on regular maintenance medication. Having to make monthly trips to the doctor and pharmacist for repeat prescriptions is a further and unnecessary inconvenience that means extra cost and additional distress, particularly when errors occur with prescriptions. Patients might need
	to take time off work, depending on surgery opening hours. Scrapping the limit would also ease pressure on doctors.
	In the past, the category of person I am referring to could have a three-month supply, which is cheaper and more convenient for those who require medication. I hope that the new clinical commissioning groups will consider carefully the need for individual prescribing for optimal treatment plans and avoid the rigid 28-day limit. Please may we have central guidance from the Department of Health?
	The Secretary of State stated last year that those with long-term conditions and older people with multiple long-term conditions are among his key priorities. In that context, it is important to remember that it is not necessarily older people who have long-term conditions. A number of long-term conditions, such as cystic fibrosis, start from birth, while others, such as Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis, are commonly diagnosed in the teens and twenties. Those conditions have their most devastating impact just as young people are becoming adults and are attempting to complete their education, entering relationships, learning to balance their budgets and forming their career and life path.
	In addition to all the usual challenges that poses, those young people have to face the additional pressure of a lifelong illness that will have a considerable social, emotional, functional and economic impact on their daily lives. A significant aspect for many will be the requirement to pay for their medicine until retirement. Is that fair? I refer to my earlier observation about the billions of pounds the NHS spends treating those whose approach to life has damaged their health. I repeat: is that fair? The prescription prepayment certificate and the NHS low-income scheme are obviously better than nothing, but they are like using a sticking plaster on a gaping wound.
	Seven years ago the Health Committee produced a report on NHS charges that concluded:
	“The system of health charges in England is a mess.”
	It still is. The Committee also observed:
	“The system of medical exemptions to the Prescription Charge is particularly confusing.”
	It still is.
	I challenge the Minister on why the recommendations set out in the prescription charges review, undertaken at the behest of the previous Government by Professor Sir Ian Gilmore when he was president of the Royal College of Physicians, have not been implemented. They would greatly assist those with long-term conditions. His eminently sensible, measured and practical approach would be likely to have all manner of positive effects. Removing this aspect of health inequality, this barrier to getting and keeping well, would facilitate effective self-management, reducing unnecessary pressure on health professionals’ time and hospital A and E departments. It would also help people stay in work and off benefits and improve their long-term health conditions.
	There is no excuse for an inequality that stretches back more than 40 years. The Prescription Charges Coalition, the Health Committee report and Professor Gilmore’s recommendations provide ample justification for this injustice to be put right. I urge the Minister to state tonight that this will happen.

Anna Soubry: I congratulate my—I have to say—hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) on securing the debate, although I do not think that he made much of a friendly speech, and I have no doubt that he will not be much impressed by my response. He rightly brings the subject before the House, as is his right, and so he should. However, I think that we have to be completely realistic and honest about the situation in which we find ourselves. The simple truth is that if we extended the exemptions to all long-term conditions it would cost a considerable amount of money, and, in the words of a member of the previous Government, there is no money. I am very proud of the fact that the coalition has been able to secure the NHS budget at a time when we have had to take tough decisions and cut other budgets. We have not only maintained the NHS budget; by 2015 we will have seen a rise in the amount of money going into the NHS under the tenure of this Government. I am very proud of that.
	My hon. Friend asked whether it is right and fair that all these long-term conditions do not receive free prescriptions. He then drew a contrast with people who, in his words, have “self-inflicted lifestyle choices”, referring to those who have drug addition, alcohol addiction, obesity problems and so on. I would challenge him on that. I do not take the view that it would be right in any way, shape or form to make such suggestions about people who are having their prescriptions paid for because of their income status but have those afflictions. I can assure him that addiction is not some lifestyle choice. Many people who are addicts are born addicts; it is a disease that needs treatment, and those who are unfortunate enough to suffer from it need our support. I am sure that he is not suggesting that we should take money away from those unfortunate people in order to give it to those who are, I accept, equally in need.

Bob Russell: I regret that the Minister is drawing an inference that I did not intend in any way. I was merely making a comparison in saying that some people have been dealt unfairly with by mother nature in having to pay to stay alive, whereas others who we are told can be treated are, for whatever reason, getting free treatment.

Anna Soubry: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has made that point, because some people, I can assure him, would have made such an interpretation. I am pleased that we have set the record straight.
	In fact, the current system does provide support for people who need it the most. In 2011, for example, about 94% of all prescription items were dispensed free of charge at the point of dispensing. It is estimated that about 60% of people in England are exempt from charges. A wide range of exemptions exist to help the most vulnerable, those requiring prescriptions the most and those most in need of support. People aged 60 and over, women who are pregnant or are in the 12-month period following childbirth, those on income support, those with pension credit, those on income-based jobseeker’s allowance, those on income-related employment and support allowance, and those in receipt of a variety of tax credits all rightly receive free prescriptions.
	As we have heard, people who use prescriptions frequently can buy a prescription prepayment certificate that allows anyone to obtain all the prescriptions they need for the equivalent of £2 per week. The cost of the annual prescription prepayment certificate has been frozen at £104 for the past four years, and the cost of the three-monthly certificate has been frozen at £29.10 for two years. There are options whereby people can pay by direct debit. I concede that the system is not perfect, but it is very good.
	My hon. Friend asked, properly, why we have this system in England whereas in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland prescriptions are free. I am sure that he knows the answer: health is a devolved matter. It is for those in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide how they will spend their budget. The simple truth is that making prescriptions free for all in those countries has taken money away from other areas of their health budget. We have decided to spend our allocation of money in a different way, and rightly so, especially when we consider that the prepayment certificate of £104 a year is eminently fair for people who are unfortunate enough to have the long-term conditions that my hon. Friend identified and described. It is important to put forward that argument as well.
	As it happens, I suffer from a long-term condition—asthma—and have the benefit of an excellent GP. I am sure that that will not win me any extra favours with my hon. Friend—although I am sure he will be grateful for my comments—but I, like most of us, have an outstanding GP who has made sure that my medication is at such a level that I do not now need a prepayment certificate, because we are managing my condition.
	I am not suggesting that one should always be alert to the financial cost of issuing prescriptions, but I think it is right and fair to say that many general practitioners are aware of it. Increasingly, prescribing GPs—in other words, all GPs—are taking on the huge responsibility of bearing in mind the cost to the national health service of the prescriptions they issue their patients.
	I pay tribute to the Prescription Charges Coalition, which has worked with officials in my Department to help raise awareness of the help available to patients with the cost of their prescriptions, particularly the prescription prepayment certificate. The awareness-raising work with the PCC has already had encouraging results. Purchases of certificates in the first quarter of this year were 13% higher—about 50,000 extra—than in the same period in 2012, when this work began. We continue to work with the PCC to consider how we might build further on that awareness-raising activity.
	My hon. Friend asked a number of questions and I hope I will be able to answer them all. If not, the usual rules will apply and my officials will, of course, write to him. Since 1968 the only condition that has been added to the list is cancer in September 2008, as announced by the then Prime Minister. I pay tribute to the work of Sir Ian Gilmore. The Health Committee has produced a report and answers have been provided, but I think it is fair to say that this is all about cost. I accept that things have changed a lot since the late 1960s, but the simple reality is that if we extended free prescriptions to all long-term conditions it would cost an incredible amount of money, and I am afraid to say that that is money that we simply do not have.
	It would be very difficult to consider particular conditions in isolation and to somehow choose one. My hon. Friend has advanced the case of cystic fibrosis and one can understand why: nobody chooses to have cystic fibrosis; it is a thoroughly unpleasant condition.

Bob Russell: I did say that I was using cystic fibrosis as an example of various long-term conditions. All I ask is that the Minister and her officials look at the recommendations of Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, because at least that would give some encouragement to people with long-term conditions that the Government were looking at their situation seriously.

Anna Soubry: That is a valid point, well made, but the Government’s attitude is that it would not be right in the current situation to look at just one particular condition in isolation, because others would argue, with vigour—and rightly so—that their condition was as valid of an exemption as any other.
	My hon. Friend asked why the Government have not introduced more flexible prescribing patterns and moved away from the 28-day prescribing policy. The responsibility for prescribing, including repeat prescriptions and the duration of prescriptions, rests with GPs and other doctors who have the expertise and who rightly take clinical responsibility for that particular aspect of a patient’s care. Doctors can prescribe flexibly and take decisions about prescribing patterns on the basis of a patient’s need. Ultimately the decision must be left to the doctor, but guidance has been issued by the National Prescribing Centre about prescription terms, encouraging prescribers to be receptive to the needs of patients and to use appropriate prescribing patterns.
	My hon. Friend asked about the lack of relevant data on the costs and consequences of the current prescription charging system. At the moment, some £450 million is raised each year by charging people for their prescriptions, which is equivalent to about 13,500 qualified nurses or 3,500 hospital consultants per year. One can see the power of that money from prescription charging, but given the lack of relevant data, more research is needed
	to inform policy. It is important that we make best use of the available evidence and identify gaps in knowledge. We would, of course, welcome input from groups such as the Prescription Charges Coalition about any evidence it is aware of or studies that may have been undertaken in that area. That would help inform any research proposals that the Department of Health might consider in its assessment of research priorities. I hope that may be of interest and comfort to my hon. Friend.
	As I have said, the Government report that 90% of prescription items are dispensed without charge, but up to three quarters of those of working age with long-term conditions are believed to pay for their prescriptions. Current exemptions provide valuable help for those on the lowest incomes. They must always be our priority because they simply do not have the means to pay for a large number of prescriptions.
	Older people generally have the greatest need for medicine, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will have visited a pharmacy and seen, as I did in my constituency, the amount of medication that is often required for older people, which can be quite astronomical in size and complexity. Many older people have good, long, happy and healthy lives because of the abundance of medicines they receive, and that is one reason why we have an exemption for older people.
	Although people with long-term conditions will continue to pay for their prescriptions, the prescription prepayment certificate ensures that they can pay at considerably reduced cost. By repeatedly freezing the price of a prescription prepayment certificate and introducing a direct debit payment option to spread the cost of a 12-month certificate, we ensure that those certificates are accessible to those who need multiple prescriptions.
	I am happy to take an intervention, but I hope I have explained the Government’s current policy. It is right and proper for this issue to be raised, but at the moment the simple truth is—it gives no one any pleasure to say this—that we simply do not have the money to do all that my hon. Friend urges on me.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.

Deferred Division

Financial Services and Markets

That the draft Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 10 June, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 273, Noes 27.

Question accordingly agreed to.